CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Are Mathematical Laws Truly Mindless? by Paul N Butler
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Paul N Butler wrote on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 17:03 GMT
Essay AbstractThe depth of this subject is much greater than can be given adequate coverage in 25,000 characters. I have tried to address several key areas in as much detail as possible given the restrictions. It would take a complete book on each of some of these areas to fully explain all the variables, but I have tried to condense them down the best that I could with the purpose of stimulating thought concerning them and other areas that I just couldn’t directly include. I hope it helps others to better understand the complexities involved. The areas covered are: 1. Comparison of the laws of the universe with man’s attempt to model them. 2. The structure of man’s intelligently designed complex devices. 3. The structure of the universe. 4. A comparison between them. 5. What does the Big Bang theory tell us? 6. Could the universe create life? 7. Is evolution practical? 8. Has God provided us with information about himself, and the universe?
Author BioThe author has long desired to know how the world works and how it began. As man’s science advanced over time, its great complexity convinced him that it is a device created by an intelligent being. This began the search to fully understand this being, which still continues.
Download Essay PDF File
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 30, 2017 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Mr. Butler,
Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary “laws of the Universe.”
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 23:55 GMT
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
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Paul,
You really ought to have read my essay first. There is nothing complicated about a single celled amoeba’s surface. The whole point of my essay am that the real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 1, 2017 @ 19:23 GMT
Dear Joe,
I read your paper and at the beginning you talk about a plethora of surfaces and you then mention several things and say that they have complete surfaces. This leads me to believe that each thing has its own complete surface that is not a part of other surfaces. Later in your paper you seem to be saying that there is only one surface. How can both be true or am I misunderstanding what you are saying in some way? Please clarify what you mean. You say that light is a nonentity, are you saying that it does not exist? You mention invisible radiance causes light to appear on infinite surface. What is the nature of this invisible radiance and how does it make light to appear on surface? If light does not exist, how can I see it on a surface?
An amoeba’s surface is not as simple as you might think. It has sensors or as you would call them eyes that help it to observe obstacles and food and when it finds food it has protein machines that move parts of its surface to enclose it around the food, which is then taken into it and digested. It appears from what you say that to you the base of all things is an infinite dimension. Are there any characteristics of this dimension other than that it is infinite and that it contains an infinite visible physical surface? Is the dimension completely filled by the surface that is contained in it or does it also contain anything else in it or is there any empty part of this dimension? Is this dimension also illuminated by the light or just the surface that is contained within it?
Sincerely,
Paul
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 2, 2017 @ 17:41 GMT
Dear Paul,
Simplicity cannot be simplified. You have a complete surface do you not? And your complete surface am always in contact with parts of other surfaces am it not? It logically follows that only a single physical visible infinite surface could ever exist. I never stated that light did not exist. I stated that only infinite non-surface light existed. I also implied that if you looked directly at the sun, you could verify that sunlight never moved away from the surface of the sun. Sunbeams, however, do seem to move from the surface of the sun. This could only happen if the sun sheds radiants that turn into non-surface light when they strike the atmospheric surface that exists between earth and the sun, and illuminates the earth’s surface when they strike it as well. An amoeba’s surface has to be as simple as all other surface am. One single, sole, unified, visible, infinite surface that am occurring in one, single, sole, infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light am not my idea. It am the only way that one, single, sole, physical state could ever exist.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 03:32 GMT
Dear Joe,
I would still like for you to answer my questions and tell me about the nature of the infinite dimension so I can understand how it fits into what I see when I look at the world around me. Part of my work in this world has shown me that people do not always mean the same things when they use the same words. It is apparent to me that you do not accept man’s standard concept of...
view entire post
Dear Joe,
I would still like for you to answer my questions and tell me about the nature of the infinite dimension so I can understand how it fits into what I see when I look at the world around me. Part of my work in this world has shown me that people do not always mean the same things when they use the same words. It is apparent to me that you do not accept man’s standard concept of a 3 dimensional world, but at the same time you must have a way to explain the concepts of directions that one can go or move relative to other things that he can see around him to go from one place where he is near some things to another place where he is not near those things, but is near other things, and to go there faster or slower etc., which are very easy to observe with our eyes. A theory that can’t explain how these simple every day observations of things in this world work could not be true.
It is just as logical for every object to have its own complete individual surface and that surface can be in contact with the surfaces of other objects.
Do you consider the air around us a surface? I ask this because you say that surface is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, but when I am in a room, the ceiling, walls, and floor surfaces are illuminated by light from a ceiling light, but the air does not appear to be illuminated by light. It appears to be invisible. I see right through the air and see the walls behind it, but the surface of the walls blocks vision of anything beyond the walls. If I turn the light off, all I see is black. Did the ceiling, floor, walls, and myself all suddenly turn black, but are still illuminated by the infinite non-surface light or is the light not always illuminating all of the surface so that some of it is not always visible?
At the bottom of page 7 of your paper, you say “Infinite non-surface light requires no empowerment because it is a nonentity.” An entity is something that exists, therefore, a nonentity is something that does not exist because the prefix non means not. Also, on page 2 in the next to bottom paragraph you say “I use the word “am” because using the word “is” implies that there was a different physical condition prior to the is, best described by the use of the word “was”.”. This does not get away from the connection with the word (was) because (am) is the first person present tense word for state of being (I am here.) The first person past tense of (am) is (was). (I was here.) You were referring to the third person present tense word (is) (It is here.) and the third person past tense word (was). (It was here.) Only the second person word for state of being does not use the word (was). The present tense form is (are) (You are here.) and the past tense form is (were). (You were here.) You could change from (am) to (are), but it still has the past tense state word (were), so I don’t know that it would really help much to get your point across. You could try using a modifier word like endlessly or eternally, etc.
Do the radiants have a surface and what is the speed of their travel from the sun to the earth? How do the radiants turn into light when they hit a surface? From what you have told me so far the radiants seem to be a lot like energy photons to me. How does your theory handle light that is not visible such as microwaves or radio waves?
Why can’t there be more than one object, each with its own complete surface and its own physical state that may or may not be illuminated by light depending on whether light is present and hits (interacts with) it? That sounds just as logical to me. Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 17:00 GMT
Dear Paul,
Simplicity cannot be simplified. One real observable Universe must only have one infinite dimension. Only infinite surface exists, invisible three dimensional empty space does not. As I explained in the essay, because there am only one dimension, one only sees a disc when one looks at a sphere. One only sees a rectangle when one looks at a cube. One only sees a PLETHORA of seamlessly enmeshed surfaces when one looks in any direction at any time. One’s surface cannot go anywhere without it always touching other surfaces, as the single law of the real observable Universe has to be consistent, there must only be one, single, sole, infinite surface that am occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. I do not know anything about microwaves, or permanent waves, or waving goodbye, but I wish you a respectable adieu.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 03:10 GMT
Dear Joe,
If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point objects or line objects. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional objects. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than...
view entire post
Dear Joe,
If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point objects or line objects. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional objects. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man’s current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional object to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a spherical baseball on a table and look at it, I don’t see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional object. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles and the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional object. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don’t appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some things that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these things. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, things would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.
I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many objects that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man’s current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.
Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren’t actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I’m sure you will agree to that.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear Paul,
You do not see “objects” when you look around. You see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed surfaces.
All real visible entities have a real visible surface. Light does not have a surface, therefore, light is indisputably a nonentity. All real visible places have a real visible surface. It would be physically impossible for infinite surface to have any finite gaps.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear anonymous Paul,
You wrote: “If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them” Every real “thing” that you see has a real visible surface. That means that only a single infinite visible surface could possibly exist. Obviously, you can manufacture a finite number of boxes. But each box has to have a real visible surface, Each real tree that produced the wood from which some of the finite number of boxes were made had to have a real visible surface. Each of the nails used to hold a box together must have had a real visible surface. As I explained in my baseball item, the real visible surface of a baseball never travels at a finite speed between two measured points. You can clearly see the real surface of a baseball whether it is purportedly moving at 90 miles an hour, or whether it am stationary. The disc that you actually see merely changes size infinitely throughout the game.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 5, 2017 @ 01:02 GMT
Dear Joe,
Here is my previous message edited to remove objects. I hope that is more understandable to you.
If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the entities that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point entities or line entities. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two...
view entire post
Dear Joe,
Here is my previous message edited to remove objects. I hope that is more understandable to you.
If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the entities that we see as we see them. In man’s standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point entities or line entities. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional entities. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man’s current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional entity to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a baseball on a table and look at it, I don’t see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional entity. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles to form twelve joints between them that meet at the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional entity. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don’t appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some entities that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these entities. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, entities would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.
I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many entities with complete surfaces that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man’s current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.
Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course, there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren’t actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I’m sure you will agree to that
When you say, “All real visible entities have a real visible surface.”, are you saying that they are all continuously illuminated by light and are, therefore, always visible or just that they will be visible if they are illuminated by light, But may not be visible when light is not present? Does the light illuminate the surfaces itself or is it the radiants that the light sheds that illuminate all the surfaces? You say that light is a nonentity, but you also say that it exists. This is contrary to man’s definition of the word nonentity. What is your definition of nonentity? If it exists, it must be composed of something that has some properties. What is it composed of and what are its properties that identify it as light instead of some other nonentity?
So far, you continue to use your same examples that involve entities that are too far away to closely examine their sizes and shapes and are observed only from certain limited observation angles, etc. and completely ignore and give no response to examples that do allow you to see and observe that a ball is a sphere, a cube is not just a square, and the ball actually travels and takes time to travel from the pitcher to the catcher, etc. This tells me that either you do not desire to share your understanding with others, since I have seen this same pattern in your conversations with others also, or you know that your theory is not valid because it cannot explain these other observations. As an example, even if you see the ball at a distance at the game, if you are sitting in a seat that is centered between the pitcher and the catcher so that the pitcher is on the left side of you and the catcher is on the right side of you, you will clearly see that the ball moves from the pitcher and travels all of the distance from him to the catcher and continues to look to be about the same size during the whole trip, if you are very far from it. This travel does not occur instantly, but takes some time for it to be completed and is, therefore, at a finite speed.
Your theory needs to be able to explain all that we see and observe in any way, not just a small part of what we see and observe under certain very limited circumstances. If you find a place where it doesn’t work, look to see why it doesn’t work and how you can modify your theory so that it does work in that respect. If you keep doing that long enough, you will end up with a theory that comes closer and closer to accurately modeling reality. None of man’s current theories are completely perfect models of reality, although many would like you to believe that theirs is. There is still so much in the world and so much that can happen in the world that man is currently not even aware of, that it is unrealistic to think that any theory will be able to accurately model all of reality without any errors or omissions, etc. In order to have any hope of getting people to understand and accept some of these things, so that advancement can occur, it is sometimes necessary to use over simplifications, leave out some details that would not be believable to those of a specific technology level, or could not be proven in any way given the current technology level and current beliefs, etc., but that which is provided should work with current understandings at a level that is equal to or greater than current understandings and add some real valuable increase in understanding. Best wishes in that endeavor.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 05:27 GMT
Comment added to Carlo Rovelli’s paper page.
To All,
In looking at this page it seems to me that there is some confusion about information structuring concepts. There are two general categories of true information. They are structural information and abstract information.
Internal Structural Information is information that is built into and is, therefore, a part of the...
view entire post
Comment added to Carlo Rovelli’s paper page.
To All,
In looking at this page it seems to me that there is some confusion about information structuring concepts. There are two general categories of true information. They are structural information and abstract information.
Internal Structural Information is information that is built into and is, therefore, a part of the structure that contains it. It is written into the structure in the form of its construction. An example of this type of information would be the information that is contained within a matter particle. The matter particle contains a sub-energy particle that travels at the speed of light as its basis. A sub-energy particle contains three basic information structures that generate its normal independent operation. First is its current spatial position. Next is its direction of travel from its current position and last is its motion amplitude level that determines how quickly it changes its position. The sub-energy particle only has one independent operation, which is to continually change its position in accordance with the contents of the above mentioned internal informational structures. It can access its current position information and update it to its new location as it changes to a new location. It can read its direction and motion amplitude information to determine where it is to change its position to, but cannot change the contents of those two information structures.
External Structural Information is information elements that are built into two or more structures and are parts of the structures that contain them. It is also written into those structures in the form of their construction. It contains information elements that are only used or changed during an interaction between two or more structures. In the case of sub-energy particle interactions, this would include the ability to change the direction and/or motion amplitude levels of one or more sub-energy particles during an interaction between them. The particles position information cannot be accessed during an interaction, but changes in their direction and motion amplitude information can cause changes to the particle’s future position changes.
To build a matter particle, you next need to increase the sub-energy particle’s motion amplitude level to be greater than the speed of light. This excess speed is transferred to the particle’s fourth dimensional motion. This motion is constructed and behaves the same as the particle’s basic linear motion at the speed of light. Its motion amplitude information is variable as is its direction of travel during specific types of interactions. Its change of position works the same as in its linear motion. The fourth dimension is very small, so the motion travels a small distance and then interacts with the end of the dimension. This interaction changes its direction information to the opposite direction, but does not change its motion amplitude because motion cannot transfer into or out of the dimensional boundary. The motion then travels to the other side of the dimension and interacts in the same way with the boundary at the dimension’s other end. This creates a cyclical back and forth motion. This motion gives the sub-energy particle the frequency and wavelength wave effects that change it into an energy photon. This motion’s motion amplitude information can only be changed during an interaction that would either increase or decrease the sub-energy particle’s linear motion amplitude or due to a direct motion transfer to or from this fourth dimensional motion to another entity during an interaction. This motion effectively increases the particle’s cross section, thus increasing its probability of experiencing interactions and its angular motion at ninety degrees to its direction of travel gives it a dynamic mass effect such that if the fourth dimensional motion amplitude is great enough it can knock an electron out of an atom in what is called the photoelectric effect, etc. If an interaction causes an energy photon’s linear motion amplitude to increase, the increase is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion amplitude and if it causes a decrease in its linear motion amplitude motion amplitude is transferred from its fourth dimensional motion amplitude back into its linear motion amplitude to servo its linear motion amplitude to the speed of light. An increase in a photon’s fourth dimensional motion amplitude increases its frequency and decreases its wavelength. It also increases its dynamic mass effect. A decrease causes the opposite effects. Note that going from the lower hierarchical level of construction by adding another motion to it increases the number of information structures in the particle’s construction and also increases the complexity of the operation of those information structures both internally and in external interactions. This kind of information increase is sometimes called emergent information. The next hierarchical increase in structural information content requires that the energy photon has an adequately high fourth vector motion amplitude and come in contact with an adequate angular motion source. When this happens, some of its fourth vector motion is transferred to its fifth dimensional motion. This motion travels in an inter-dimensional cyclical pattern. First it travels from the fifth dimension to the lower three dimensions in a cyclical rotating pattern from one dimension to the next with a ninety degree overlap between the first and second, the second and third, and the third and first dimensions. This causes the energy photon to take a repetitive enclosed curved three dimensional path. That enclosed path is a matter particle. The great angular motion thus created gives the matter particle its rest mass. This extra motion would cause its linear motion to exceed the speed of light, but the excess motion is transferred to its fourth vector motion amplitude keeping it at the speed of light. All that survives of its introduction into the lower three dimensions is its angular component that generates the enclosed path structure. If the fourth vector wavelength fits properly into the enclosed curved path the extra motion amplitude is transferred back into the fifth vector motion and the inter-dimensional motion transfer cycle is complete. Notice how the addition of the fifth vector motion not only adds more structural information to accommodate the added motion, but its internal structural information for that new hierarchical motion introduction is much more complex than that for the other motion structures. Both the fourth and fifth vector motion structures also require more structural information connected to the addition of two more dimensional structures. This completes the lowest level of hierarchical structure level.
The next level involves the production of atoms from matter particles and field structures composed of sub-energy particles. This level goes through a much larger hierarchical structural growth from the lowest level hydrogen atom all the way up to the top level of that hierarchical structural level. In this level two of the components of the lowest level (sub-energy particles and matter particles) are combined together. The matter particles provide the main structure of the atom and the sub-energy particles provide the binding structures that allow the matter particles to be held together in the atomic unit. When this happens, new internal and external information usually is produced that is not just the same as that in its components, but new internal information of the atom as a whole is generated that relates to the joining together of its parts in new ways and also in the atoms external interaction information which must also accommodate the new internal structure into its external interaction information structure to allow for new types of interactions, etc.
Then comes the molecular level, which is hierarchically much more expansive than the atomic level in number of and complexity of its internal and external information structures. This type of hierarchical multilevel expansive structuring ability is only produced by living creatures in the output products of the highest level intelligent creature known, namely man. The intelligence contained in the structures of this world is much greater than that which man can produce, however.
The other type of information is abstract information. It is information that is contained in a structure that is not used directly by that structure in its normal internal and external existence operations. A good example of this type of information is the information contained in a DNA molecule that abstractly represents or models some other structure such as a particular protein’s structure. Again, man is the only known living creature that produces this type of information about the structure of complex devices and stores it in other structures. A good example of this in a man’s device is the memory of a computer that contains complex structural designs to build a complex device. Again, man cannot come close to abstractly modeling the structure and manufacture of a man as is contained in a man’s DNA molecules.
To summarize, at the lowest hierarchical structural level both the internal and external information structures are very simple. These get more complex when we: 1. Add new structures that may have existed, but were not used by the lowest level such as another dimension, etc. 2. Add existing components to that new structure like the motion that is added to that new dimension. 3. Addition of new external interaction information structures such as the mechanism that automatically transfers motion between the new dimension and the other original dimensions under certain circumstances. 4. New ways that the complete assembly (energy photon) can interact with other entities, such as the ninety degree angular motion component that is now present for interaction.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 01:54 GMT
Too all,
The above comment that I posted on Carlo Rovelli’s paper’s page showed up on it after I sent it, but was somehow removed by the next day when I checked his page again. It was either removed by him, which is within his right to do or was removed due to some software glitch, etc. It seems that currently there is no way that a commenter is notified as to who and why a comment is removed. I believe this should be corrected. I would just put a quick comment on his page to ask him if he had it taken off, but so far he has not answered any of the comments that are posted on his page, even one from a member of FQXI George F. R. Ellis, so I don’t think that it would do much good. Since I posted the above comment I would like to add some information to it, so I will just add it as another addition to this comment here on my paper’s page for anyone that might be interested.
Sincerely,
Paul
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 02:00 GMT
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
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 15:56 GMT
Dear Buttler,
Thank you for the good discussion and good essay. Your sub-heading and discussion … ‘Could the universe, as it is, have been created by chance happenings?’ is good.
I am also a firm believer of God. But I don’t think he created this universe at one stroke like Bigbang.
I request you to have a look at my essay and Dynamic Universe Model blog. It is singularity free universe model without dark matter and dark energy. And give your valuable comments…
Best wishes…
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 9, 2017 @ 19:24 GMT
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
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 23:53 GMT
Dear Paul,
Thank you very much for such nice discussion...
I made 9 reply posts for your post, I request you to have a look in the thread on Dynamic Universe model
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 00:25 GMT
Dear Paul
Some Important parts I am giving here please...
……… 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?…………
Bigbang Physics say it is Blackhole dried up. By definition Blackhole never dries up. It only increases its mass due to accretion. Then the question comes how a Galaxy quenches? It is happening in the universe.
In Dynamic Universe Model, the central Densemass which holds the Galaxy together can dry up. What is dense mass actually? In a Galaxy the distance between stars can vary from say 4 light years to 100 light years or more in bulge and disk areas. But in the central Densemass these inter star distances are less than I light year. This Densemass is not a lump some mass at the center like a Blackhole. It can dry up or in other words, its stars can driftaway due to dynamical forces. See the paper on “Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model” in viXra …
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 00:33 GMT
Dear Paul,
The last part of Post. please have look all the posts in my thread...
……………..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.…………..
This is a Good idea, but I don’t know how to check them and what will be use of such Gravitational null locations, thank you for your blessings once again…
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 18:48 GMT
Your comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul
I will answer your views in small different posts...
Thank you Paul for nice thinking and elaborate discussion.
….. concept that the energy photons that are radiated from stars as a by product of the fusion of light elements such as hydrogen into helium would be changed back into more matter (presumably hydrogen) as...
view entire post
Your comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul
I will answer your views in small different posts...
Thank you Paul for nice thinking and elaborate discussion.
….. concept that the energy photons that are radiated from stars as a by product 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….
This concept in Dynamic Universe Model is different….
- No fourth vector motion (i.e. has a high enough frequency) is needed.
-The frequency of radiation is converted into higher or lower depending on the relative motion between the radiation and the gravitating mass.
-The frequency shifting happens due to Gravitation attraction between photon and gravitating mass.
-The velocity of radiation is comparable to that of the velocity of light.
-See the paper “Blue and Red Shifted Galaxies are resulted due to frequency shifting in electromagnetic radiation near gravitating masses in Dynamic Universe Model” There in that paper we will see that Dynamic Universe Model says this frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum. That means towards the frequency of a mass like electron or positron also. In other words Dynamic Universe Model predicts conversion of energy into mass.
This paper is available at the links
https://figshare.com/s/1ff519a6f21be0c725e0
or
http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0132
Dear Satyavarapu,
Thank you for your many responses. I will try to address them all, but it may take me awhile.
Comment to Your first comment
I read your paper. It contains some information that seems to me to be contrary to man’s usual use of words. Such as:
clearly see that the light from distant Galaxy when passes grazingly near a gravitating mass like Sun the incident frequency of the radiation will increase (Red shifted) when the relative movement of the gravitating body is in opposite direction to EM radiation and the frequency will reduce when the relative movement of the body is in same direction (Blue shifted).
Since Blue light has a higher frequency than red light, an increase in frequency is usually called blue shifted and a decrease in frequency is called red shifted. In the above excerpt from your paper you use the opposite form. Is that an error in your paper or is there some reason for the form that you used? It is mentioned that way in several places in your paper.
You are right that the frequency of an energy photon can be increased into the range of matter particles, but just increasing the frequency to that level does not cause the photon to change into a matter particle. Gamma rays are energy photons that contain enough motion to make a matter particle, but they don’t all turn into matter particles. How does your theory explain how that transition from an energy photon to a matter particle works?
Just because an energy photon has a high frequency does not make it shifted either red or blue. The usual way to determine shifting is to look at the complete spectrum of the light. Each element, when heated, gives off light in several narrow frequency bands called spectral lines. These lines are always in the same place in the complete frequency spectrum of light frequencies. Even though you cannot see the frequencies of light that are generated in the spectral lines of gamma rays or other frequencies of light above the visible range they still exist and machinery can be made that can observe them. If a star is traveling away from you and you look at its light spectrum lines you can determine the elements that generated that light by the spacing of its spectral lines and in the above situation those lines will be positioned lower in the spectrum than they would be if the star was not moving in reference to you. Lower in the spectrum is called red shifted because red light is at the low frequency end of the visible light frequency range. If the star is moving toward you the spectral lines will be shifted up in frequency and this would be called blue shifted because blue light is at the high frequency area of the visible light frequency range. A gamma ray would be red shifted if it came from a source that was traveling away from you and blue shifted if it was traveling toward you. If it came from a source that was not moving either way in respect to you, it would not be shifted and its spectrum would be normal.
The rest mass of a particle is its mass when it is not in motion. You cannot stop the motion of an energy photon, so it does not possess a rest mass. If you were to try to reduce its forward speed at the speed of light all that would happen would be a reduction in its frequency. If you continued to do so, its frequency would go down to zero and it would disappear because it would no longer have wave effects. It would cease to be an energy photon. Instead energy photons have a dynamic mass, which increases with an increase in its frequency. That is why a visible frequency light photon can knock an electron out of its orbit around an atom to generate a free electron in the photoelectric effect.
In your theory, what is the structure of an energy photon and what is the structure of a matter particle, such as an electron? How does the structure of an energy photon change into that of a matter particle and visa versa? What is the structure of a field? And how does it work in relation to matter particles to bind them together into atoms? If you believe that there are different types of fields what is the structure of each type? How does a gravity field increase the frequency of an energy photon instead of its linear motion like it would to a matter particle?
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 18:51 GMT
Your comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
Your observation...
……… 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...
view entire post
Your comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
Your observation...
……… 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 is not required in Dynamic Universe Model…
Dear Satyavarapu,
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:
motion concentrations naturally tend to disperse evenly throughout space.
Both of these actions are parts of entropy and can be easily observed in nature. First, if you take an insulated container and place a thin metal divider down the middle of it to separate it into 2 equal sized sections and place thermometers in both sides and then completely close off both sides from each other and from the external environment and then place gas at 100 degrees F into one section and an equal amount of gas at 200 degrees F in the other section, you will notice that the temperature in the hot side of the container will begin to go down while it will go up in the cold side. After some time both sides will be at the same temperature, which will be between the original high and low side temperatures. The metal divider keeps the gas in one side of the container from mixing with the gas in the other side of the container while at the same time allowing motion interactions between the gas on both sides of the container and the metal divider to take place to transfer motion amplitude between the 2 sides in the way that it will naturally transfer. This experiment confirms my first statement above to be the truth. The second statement can be easily confirmed by putting a drop of food color into a glass of still water. As you watch it you will see that the food color gradually mixes itself more and more evenly throughout the water until all of the water is clear if only a small amount of color was used or is tinted the color of the food color if a larger amount was used.
These actions always work to cause some loss of useable motion, so that no large scale interaction, such as the fusion reaction in stars can ever recover all of the motion that went into it for further use because some of it is lost due to the averaging of motions so that it can no longer be used and some of it is dispersed evenly throughout space. I mainly previously covered that some energy photons would not come near any large masses and would not, therefore, be converted back into matter particles even if all that did come close to, such a large mass would be converted, thusly. The part that I didn’t cover yet is that although the fusion reaction frees up a lot of motion in the form of radiation, most of the motion that was contained in the original hydrogen atoms would still be contained within the star in the form of the new Helium atom that is generated by the reaction. This atom can also be fused and that process can continue until all of the lower atoms in the star have been converted into middle range atoms, which still contain the bulk of the motion that was in the original hydrogen atoms. Unless your theory also has a way to convert these midrange element atoms back into hydrogen, the motion contained in them would no longer be useful for the star to use in fusion reactions. This would mean that even if all of the radiation that was emitted from the fusion reactions was converted back into hydrogen there would still be much less hydrogen than before because most of the motion contained in the original hydrogen is still locked up in the form of the atoms of the midrange elements that were formed as part of the output from the fusion process. As this new hydrogen was fused much of its motion would be converted into midrange atoms also, so even less hydrogen would be recovered from its radiation. The end result is that you would ultimately have a large amount of midrange atoms in stars, but no more lighter elements that can generate fusion reactions and the stars would burn out.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 18:55 GMT
Your third comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
Your another part of observation,
……… 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...
view entire post
Your third comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
Your another part of observation,
……… 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.…….
Here you brought the God into picture. It is general human tendency to put something as act of God, when the human understanding fails. Science will progress by searching more and more avenues of understanding….
Your fourth comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
Another part of your observation....
...…… 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.…….
I disagree with you here… It is our duty to tell the people about what is right, of course as much as possible in simple words…
Dear Satyavarapu,
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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 18:57 GMT
Your fifth comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
Another of your observation...
……… 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...
view entire post
Your fifth comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
Another of your observation...
……… 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.…………
Should not leave that even if it is BIGBANG theory, you should TELL it boldly don’t worry…
Your sixth comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
Another part please...
………..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……..
Good Discussion….
Your seventh comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
Another part please...
………… 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.……….
A stone thrown out into air will fall back to earth. It is because the UGF vector towards earth is high. All these bodies move according to UGF acting on it. Body to Body collisions are different, they happen due to singularities inherent in the model. In Dynamic Universe Model such singularities are not there. They don’t collapse…..
Dear Satyavarapu,
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.
In your sixth comment:
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.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 18:59 GMT
Your eighth comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul
Another Important part please...
……… 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...
view entire post
Your eighth comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul
Another Important part please...
……… 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?…………
Bigbang Physics say it is Blackhole dried up. By definition Blackhole never dries up. It only increases its mass due to accretion. Then the question comes how a Galaxy quenches? It is happening in the universe.
In Dynamic Universe Model, the central Densemass which holds the Galaxy together can dry up. What is dense mass actually? In a Galaxy the distance between stars can vary from say 4 light years to 100 light years or more in bulge and disk areas. But in the central Densemass these inter star distances are less than I light year. This Densemass is not a lump some mass at the center like a Blackhole. It can dry up or in other words, its stars can driftaway due to dynamical forces. See the paper on “Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model” in viXra …
Your ninth comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
………………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. …………..
Thank you once again for nice and helpful thoughts and blessings…
Your tenth comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
This is the last part of your discussion
……………..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.…………..
This is a Good idea, but I don’t know how to check them and what will be use of such Gravitational null locations, thank you for your blessings once again…
Your eleventh comment to me on your paper’s page:
Dear Paul,
Another part pl
………… 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. …………………
I collected real data of Galaxies, due to length of the paper limitation I did not include, but the reference I gave are papers which give real data…..
Dear Satyavarapu,
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. 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.
In your ninth comment:
You are welcome.
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
hide replies
James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 18:39 GMT
Paul,
We posit some of the same mysteries, issues and questions but I tend to leave nature in the realm of a process we are left with and God in the realm of faith to embody what we can't seem to fathom. Entropy is a natural process which seems to govern the animate and inanimate -- the tiny and the colossal.
An interesting read.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 22:24 GMT
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
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 00:27 GMT
Dear Paul,
………………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. …………..
Thank you once again for nice and helpful thoughts and blessings…
report post as inappropriate
Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 05:38 GMT
...And so who made God?
God is not a solution, only another question...
Declan T
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 18:31 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 18:39 GMT
Once again even though I checked to see if I was still logged in just before I sent the above post, it somehow logged me off and then sent it as anonymous. I usually read over my post after entering it into the window to check it out to see if it is ok. This can take some time. The log off time needs to be changed to a longer time period and a log off message should be sent back to the page before log off occurs to avoid this problem.
Sincerely,
Paul
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 04:00 GMT
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
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 00:18 GMT
Declan’s comment to me on his paper’s page:
Paul,
You are assuming that the proteins were built in one go from scratch. No doubt there are countless clever tricks that nature used to generate these structures in the time available. Catalysis is just one such example. There would be quantum leaps in structure creation in the same sort of way that we have big advances in technology...
view entire post
Declan’s comment to me on his paper’s page:
Paul,
You are assuming that the proteins were built in one go from scratch. No doubt there are countless clever tricks that nature used to generate these structures in the time available. Catalysis is just one such example. There would be quantum leaps in structure creation in the same sort of way that we have big advances in technology that completely revolutionize the world each time they occur. These sorts of developments in living organisms may not occur very often, but when they do, they can have huge ramifications for the development of living creatures and they build upon one another.
Just as an internet search engine can find things very quickly without having to trawl through every web page on the internet every time a search is done, nature no doubt has ways to fast track the process of developing structures that work and persist without having to try every possible combination of atoms.
Regards,
Declan
My comment to Declan:
Dear Declan,
Are you aware of any of these tricks or are you just imagining the possibility of them? Imagining possibilities without a clear workable concept and without any observational evidence of their existence is not really science. It is just your desired belief. I learned a long time ago that if I really wanted to know how things really work I have to stay within the constraints of existing observational information when forming a concept and then if it requires that something exists that has not yet been observed in some way, I must wait until that observation has been made before I accept that concept as valid. As an example, the concept of a catalysis working to enable the production of living creatures does not work because it cannot generate the needed choice mechanism to choose which amino acids need to be added to make a valid protein molecule and the order in which they must be assembled to accomplish that end result. Speeding up a random process with one doesn’t help because there isn’t enough matter in the universe to make one of each of the possible different protein machines. This means that there would need to be a way for intelligent choices to be made. You are right that man has sometimes gained intelligent understandings that have made great advances in technology, which is an example of what intelligence can accomplish, which would be a good example that God being an intelligent being well beyond man’s abilities could easily create living creatures, but the world that existed before the first living creature existed would not contain such intelligence other than from God. Being entropy based, it would work more to break down any complex structures, such as the protein machines, RNA molecules, and DNA molecules, etc. that would be needed to build the first living creature. Some of these protein machines are so delicate that man has not yet been able to keep them from breaking down long enough to take a neutron magnetic resonance image of them ounce they are extracted from a cell. It is not practical to expect the nonliving entropy based world structure to be able to exhibit the intelligence needed to plan organize and build the first living creature, of course, if you can see some actual provable way it can be done naturally, I would like to hear it. I have not been able to see any way it can be done. Generalizations of hoped for mechanisms without any observational evidence will not convince me or anyone else who really wants to know how it actually worked. Other than God, you cannot use examples of what man or other living creatures can do because they were not present at the time of the creation of the first living creature. You can only reasonably use natural processes that either exist today or of which there is reasonable observational evidence did exist at the time of the creation of the first living creature.
Where can I observe those natural fast track ways and how do they work? We all have desires as to how we would like the world to work. When we follow the observational data we often must accept that things don’t work in the way that we desire them to work. We all possess imaginations. When we allow the observational information to guide our imaginations it can lead us to new understandings in science. On the other hand, when we allow our imaginations to guide our observations we are likely to come up with new understandings in science fiction. There is a market for that also, when it is clearly labeled as such, but it is an invitation to disaster when it is marketed as true science because it can hold back important advances that can often save people’s lives or at least make their lives much better. That is why I always look for good practical ideas not just vague inferences of imagined possibilities. I am sure that I come across to many others as expecting too much of them, but in fact I understand man’s faults and limitations, so in most cases I don’t hold others to the same standard that I expect of myself, unless I see in them the ability to succeed at that level. In those cases I work harder to see if they are willing to actually achieve what they truly can. I must admit that so far in this world, I have not found many that both have the ability and are willing to put in the work necessary to become fully developed. We all, of course, have our ultimate limitations and must learn to live and work the best that we can within them.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 20:24 GMT
Declan Andrew Traill’s comment to me on his paper’s page:
Paul,
Sure there is a lot to learn that we don't know and possibly cannot ever know about the processes and steps that led to the formation of living creatures on Earth, but the ultimate attribution of the cause without any observational evidence is to put it all down to God. This is just a way to put everything that we...
view entire post
Declan Andrew Traill’s comment to me on his paper’s page:
Paul,
Sure there is a lot to learn that we don't know and possibly cannot ever know about the processes and steps that led to the formation of living creatures on Earth, but the ultimate attribution of the cause without any observational evidence is to put it all down to God. This is just a way to put everything that we don't understand into a single basket and call it God. Throughout history many things were not understood and put down to God, but later sound Scientific reasons were discovered for them. If one is to apply Scientific method to the problem, then we should set out given our understanding of existing Science and assume that there are logical mechanisms to be discovered and then set out to discover them.
Regards,
Declan
My comment to Declan:
Dear Declan,
I realize that there are those who just consider anything that they don’t understand and can’t observe the evidence of its cause, to be just an unexplainable act of God. At the same time, I have also, especially recently, noticed many who automatically consider such things to be an act of nature. I am not like that because I desire to know the true cause of all things to the greatest degree that I can. If the cause of something is completely unknown and there is no convincing evidence either way, I would withhold judgment either way and just admit that I don’t currently have the information to discern the cause. That is much better than to jump to a conclusion either way because that would tend to blind me from any new evidence that would suggest that the choice that I did not choose is actually the cause. It is, therefore, an error to put such things into either the God or nature basket. True science is not limited to the study of nature only or of God only. It is the pursuit of the knowledge and understanding of all things that exist. If God exists and did create the universe and the life that is in it, then that is very important for us to understand because if he in some way communicates to us the reason for the creation and why he created life including us, it could completely alter and enrich our lives in many positive ways. On the other hand, if we ignore his communication to us, it could lead to disaster because we could completely fail to fulfill his purpose for us, which could result in his rejection of us and lead to very bad consequences for us, etc. On the other hand, fulfilling our purpose could result in very good things for us. At the same time, it is important for us to understand how the world works because that can lead to the ability to control things in it in such a way as to make our lives better also. In the long run if you keep your mind open to all of the possibilities you will be able to be on the right side based on all of the currently available observational information. If new observations alter the balance in favor of one position over the other you will be ready to choose whatever the preponderance of the information indicates to be the best choice at that time. Contrary to the expectations of many people science is not as exact as some would like to believe it is. This is because we never have all of the possible observational evidence for us to be sure we interpret it accurately. When you add to that the understanding that people usually bring their desired beliefs of how they want things to be and work into their interpretation of the evidence, it is easy to see why so many false assumptions of the meaning of the observational evidence have occurred over time in science. You are right that many things have been attributed to God and later were found to be just natural functions of the structure of the universe. I am now, however, seeing many things being put down to nature that the preponderance of the evidence suggests would be better to be attributed to God. Interestingly, it has been the advancement of science that has led to this conclusion. A couple of these things are:
1. It is now apparent that the structure of the universe is that of a multilevel hierarchical device or machine that starts out in an abstract form based on simple motions that are combined to form the base level of sub-energy particles that field structures are composed of, energy photons that transfer motions between structures and matter particles that form the body of the structures. These first level structures are joined together to generate the second hierarchical level of atomic structure. The atoms of this level combine together in many ways to produce the third molecular level. The molecules are then combined together in many ways to produce the large scale literal objects that we see and use that make up the fourth hierarchical level of construction. This type of construction of starting with simple parts and combining them together into more complicated subassemblies and then combining the subassemblies together to form larger assemblies and then combining the assemblies together to make a complex structure or machine is exactly the way that intelligent man builds complex structures, such as a car, etc. This is clear evidence that intelligence was behind and directed the creation of the universe. On the other hand, a natural world that was formed by chance happenings would be a much more flat non-structured world because chance equal probability occurrences would tend toward the middle average range and, therefore, would not tend to build up complex highly improbable structures that would continually require the right choices to be made to build them into higher level structures and keep them from collapsing. This would be the case even at the most basic choice level. As an example, cyclical motion structures are required to generate energy photons and matter particles. Generally cyclical motions must travel sequentially in both directions in each dimension that takes part in the cyclical motion. To generate cyclical motions at the very lowest level of construction generally requires that the dimensional system be structured to generate them. Each of the lowest three dimensions is structured the same as the other two dimensions, which would be in accordance with what might be expected from a naturally generated universe, but the fourth and fifth dimensions are each structured differently from the first 3 and also from each other in order to allow for the production of energy photons and matter particles. The fourth dimension is somewhat more complex than the first 3 and the fifth dimension has an even more complex structure than the fourth. This progressive increase in complexity at this level is not something that would be expected to occur by chance, especially since the structural entity crossover points and dimensional size and interfacing, etc. are exactly that needed to allow the production of the energy photons and matter particles. If these were off, the universe would only contain sub-energy particles. Note: I realize that much of the above information is well beyond man’s current knowledge level, but I give it for the benefit of all that may be able to understand these things at present and to man when these concepts are later commonly understood. The speed of light is the result of the motion crossover point between the lower three dimensions and the fourth dimension. If there was no fourth dimension, sub-energy particles could travel at any speed and there would not be energy photons. If the fourth dimension exists, but is structured the same as the first three, sub-energy particles would have four dimensions to travel in, but there still would not be any energy photons. It is only when the dimensional structural design is as it is that it allows photons to exist and behave as they do. Similar things could be said about the production of matter particles. Similar things could also be said about how the internal motions of matter particles interact with sub-energy particles to produce the particles’ internal and external sub-energy field structures that allow the protons and neutrons to be contained in the center of an atom and also allow the electrons to be bound to their appropriate places within the external field structure, etc. At each hierarchical level there are similar finely balanced structures that would not be generated by random occurrences. Most of the things that I have mentioned here are not what you would commonly find in other material, but many current scientists have noted how universal constants, etc. are balanced just right to allow the world to exist in a way that would allow life to be formed and live. This is why the multiverse concept was developed to try to explain the problem away by saying that if there were billions of universes, it would not be unexpected that one of them would form the way this one did. The problem with that concept is that there is no observational evidence of the existence of a multiverse, so it is just another imaginary thing invented to distract people from where the actual observational evidence leads to.
2. The production of the first living creature is the other area where it is obvious that intelligence was involved. I have already given information that shows that the protein machines that are in all living creatures could not be randomly produced by natural occurrences because of the vast number of possible different proteins that can be made. It requires an intelligence to be able to determine the needed structure that each needed protein would require in order to be able to perform its intended purpose and then to choose the number of amino acids that would be needed and their proper sequencing to produce the needed protein machines to build the living creature and then to actually build the machines. I should also mention that the protein machines are not all just a long single chain of amino acids. Many have various shapes such as spirals and even have small appendages that can be used to grab things, etc. They can be more complex structures than might be believed from just the description of them as chains of amino acids. These extra complexities that give them the ability to do what they do are also signs of an intelligence behind their construction.
I guess I got carried away again, so I will end this. My point is that all of the evidence at present points to intelligence being involved in all aspects of the universe’s creation and I have not found any one that can explain these things from a naturalist perspective without falling back on nonspecific generalizations or imaginary inventions that have no observational evidence to support them or by trying to make people believe that well known attributes of the universe, such as entropy work differently than all of the observational evidence indicates that they do, etc.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 21:48 GMT
Declan Andrew, Traill’s comment to me on his paper’s page:
Paul,
Surely you have heard of the anthropology principle?
Namely: of course the Universe is constructed in such a way to support intelligent life, otherwise we would not be hear to ponder such a question.
Apart from that I come back to my earlier point: If we consider the Universe and God to be one and the...
view entire post
Declan Andrew, Traill’s comment to me on his paper’s page:
Paul,
Surely you have heard of the anthropology principle?
Namely: of course the Universe is constructed in such a way to support intelligent life, otherwise we would not be hear to ponder such a question.
Apart from that I come back to my earlier point: If we consider the Universe and God to be one and the same, then there need not be a creator as such, and of course everything that happens in the Universe is caused by the Universe/God.
This way we can both agree. It is just a semantic argument about whether we call it the Universe or God.
Having said that, any process that occurs in the Universe/God can be described by Science via mechanisms that are known, or are yet to be uncovered.
Regards,
Declan
Correction: anthropology should read Anthropic (auto correct error)
My comment to Declan on his paper’s page:
Dear Declan,
The problem with considering the universe to be God is that the intelligence that was required to build the universe would have been needed from the beginning of the universe to even generate energy photons and matter particles, etc. and the universe would not have had any structure at that time that could contain any intelligence. The universe even today does not contain such intelligence. There is no observational evidence that the universe is creating any new universes. Even the most intelligent living being in the universe today, which as far as man here knows to exist is man himself and man is nowhere near intelligent enough to plan and build the universe, so the required intelligence had to come from outside of the universe in order to plan it out and then build it all from base motions successfully. This means that both must exist separately. This does not mean that the scientific method cannot be used to learn things about God or his creation. After all, the scientific discoveries about the complex structure of the universe and the living creatures in it have now made the preponderance of the evidence to be in favor of God’s needed existence to explain how it could possibly come about. There are many things we can learn about him from observing the universe that he made. The fact that he could start out with just basic motions and build them up to make the whole universe in all of its complexity shows us that he is worthy to be honored by us and we can learn much about how to do things ourselves by observing how he did these things. The fact that man builds things on the level that he can, in a similar way, does give credence to the concept that we were made in his image. Of course, the image is never as good as the real thing, so we can’t start with base motions and build a universe, but we can build small things based on similar principles with the materials that we can work with. The way that the universe is made indicates that God desired for us to know that he built it. As an example, if he had only made it possible to construct the protein machines that are needed to create living creatures or if he had made a mechanism that automatically built the needed proteins in large quantities, so that we would see them laying around everywhere, it might not seem so impossible for them to have somehow come about naturally, but instead he made it possible to make so many different proteins that it would be obvious that they could not have come about naturally. I have found other such indications that he made the world in such a way as to tell us things about him. In the scriptures God tells us that he is a spirit. He tells us that a spirit has not flesh and bones (not made of matter). He also says that those who are led by the Spirit are like the wind. You can hear the sound thereof, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes. A good image of this is the sub-energy particles because you cannot see them or tell where they come from or where they go, but you can experience their effects like the push experienced when the like poles of two magnets are pushed toward each other. They also hold all of the matter particles together in the atomic and molecular levels of construction, etc. He says that his son Jesus Christ is the only mediator between him and man and that man is intended to be his body. Energy photons are a good image of the Son because they can transfer motion and information from sub-energy particles to the matter particles which make up the body structure of the universe. This transfer can work the other way also. There are also three major hierarchical structural levels that build the complexity up to the large scale objects that we see. They are the basic particle level, the atomic level and the molecular levels of structure. These three levels are for the most part invisible to us except when very large numbers of atoms or molecules are joined together. God also generally remains invisible to us except when he appears to someone to give a message to man or in the form of works that man cannot do such as in miraculous healings, etc. The longest time that he appeared was when he sent his son Jesus Christ into the world for over thirty three years to have him give us his New Testament or agreement with man during the last three and one half years of that time, which was about two thousand years ago. Since you desire to believe in a naturalistic world construction, you probably do not believe in such things and I did not either until I opened the scriptures and found that it contains scientific information about the structure of the world that is still well beyond man’s current level of understanding. This is extraordinary for a book that was written about two thousand years ago, which is very long before man had any idea of the nature of atoms let alone subatomic particles, energy photons, or sub-energy particles or the field structures that they make. So, information has been given to us about God, why he made the universe, and how we figure into all of it, in both the structure of the world and also in his words that he has given to us through man over time. I gave some information from the scriptures about the structure of the world in Genesis at the end of my paper and there are many other things in various places throughout the scriptures that give information about many different things, but there would be no use going through them unless you are interested. If you are interested, I would be happy to give such information.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
hide replies
Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 00:29 GMT
My comment entered on Daniel Gianni’s paper’s page:
Dear Daniel,
I have not yet looked at all of the papers in this contest, but your paper is by far the best one that I have seen so far. You are right that there is no existence of a time dimension, etc. and time is just a relationship between a motion and the distance that it travels in comparison to some other motion that...
view entire post
My comment entered on Daniel Gianni’s paper’s page:
Dear Daniel,
I have not yet looked at all of the papers in this contest, but your paper is by far the best one that I have seen so far. You are right that there is no existence of a time dimension, etc. and time is just a relationship between a motion and the distance that it travels in comparison to some other motion that travels a specific distance. It is only needed because all motions are not equal in the amount or amplitude of motion that they contain, such that when one motion travels a certain distance another motion that is started simultaneously with it will travel a different distance. A more meaningful and much easier method to compare one motion to another one is to just pick any particular motion’s motion amplitude as a unit of measurement of motion amplitude and compare all motions to that unit. This is what is actually being done in that all time units are based on comparisons of a motion to a standard motion, such as the rotational motion of the earth on its axis or the vibration of a certain type of atom under certain specific conditions, etc., but the addition of the concept of time duration passage confuses things, so that man has begun to think of time as a separate existing thing of itself, when in fact it is only a measurement of a relationship between two or more motions.
I have come to realize that all things in the universe that we can observe are composed or made of one or more motions. All matter particles, energy photons, and even the sub-energy particles that make up fields are made up of combinations of basic motions. As a matter particle’s linear motion increases toward the speed of light its internal motions change causing size variation, etc. of the matter particle. This internal motion structure of matter particles and energy photons, etc. causes the variable outcomes that are observed and the probabilities of each one occurring during interactions that quantum mechanics attempts to model. Man just does not yet have the ability to observe those motions and, therefore, he cannot yet predict which one of the possible outcomes will be generated by any particular interaction. It is possible to observe them, but man will never get that ability as long as he denies the possibility of acquiring that ability.
If you are interested in any of these things you can look at my current and past papers on this site’s contests. Don’t feel bad if your concepts are not generally received and applauded by most others because 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. In addition to that I have found that my understandings of how things work in the world have increased in the process of making these papers. I have come to the conclusion that even if no one else gets anything from them I still, gain knowledge from doing them and that is enough for me. I hope that it is the same for you also, or better yet, I hope yours will be recognized for their value.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 22, 2017 @ 18:10 GMT
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
Author Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 23:34 GMT
My comment entered on Ronald Racicot’s paper’s page:
Dear Ronald,
I find it good that you understand that most things that many consider to be random chance happenings because they cannot predict the actual outcome that will occur are often the result of unknown variable structural actions that when involved in interactions with other similar entities can yield one of a certain...
view entire post
My comment entered on Ronald Racicot’s paper’s page:
Dear Ronald,
I find it good that you understand that most things that many consider to be random chance happenings because they cannot predict the actual outcome that will occur are often the result of unknown variable structural actions that when involved in interactions with other similar entities can yield one of a certain number of specific outcome results with a specific probability of each outcome being generated by the interaction. I have found that the internal structure of matter particles, energy photons, and the sub-energy particles that make up field structures, contain dynamic motions that yield such variable outcomes. Just knowing this, however, does not make it possible to predict the outcome of an individual interaction because it would be necessary for man to gain the ability to observe these internal motions, in some way, to see what their positions, etc. will be at the interaction point and/or to gain the ability to control them, so that they will be in their desired states for the interaction to yield the desired results, but it can lead to the development of such abilities and is, therefore, an important first step in the right direction. Understanding these things can also clear up many of the erroneous quantum mechanical concepts, so that advancements can better occur because of not needing to carry all of the false conceptual baggage that is currently holding back progress.
I also have found that the universe shows all the signs of having been designed and built by a very intelligent being, such as a multilevel hierarchical structure that at its lowest level is composed of simple motions to build the sub-energy, energy photon, and matter particles, which are then used to build the atomic hierarchical level, which is then used to build the molecular hierarchical level, which is then used to produce the large scale level that we mostly live in. Our construction is, of course, greatly accomplished at the molecular level. It is our structure that has completely convinced me that we could not have been produced by natural processes. I could go into these things further, but I don’t want to take up too much of your paper’s space, so unless you are interested in more information on these things I will leave it at that for now. You can also get much of this and other information from my various contest papers on this site. If you have any further questions, I would be happy to try to answer them.
I think highly of your ability to discern things that many others cannot, but due to a lack of knowledge of the basic structural components of the universe, you have drawn conclusions, such as that there are probabilistic structures built into the universe that cannot be understood or controlled to the point that actual individual interaction outcomes can be determined and that such supposed structures somehow aided in the construction of living creatures, etc. Such structures do not actually exist, however. When the internal structures of particles, etc. are fully understood, the probabilistic structures disappear and are replaced by structures that have fully explainable outcomes. The problem is just that man has not yet been able to observe these structures, but it is possible to model them using available observational information.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 20:41 GMT
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
Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 22:45 GMT
Dear Paul Butler
Everybody talks of “space-time” and because I think than most people don’t know what they meant. I thought you would be interested in it’s meaning after we know that the experimental “time” meaning is “movement”
“Movement” on the “space-time” construction
Minkowski “space-time”...
view entire post
Dear Paul Butler
Everybody talks of “space-time” and because I think than most people don’t know what they meant. I thought you would be interested in it’s meaning after we know that the experimental “time” meaning is “movement”
“Movement” on the “space-time” construction
Minkowski “space-time” construction, for the first time used in a theory by Albert Einstein with a fourth dimension, he used to say “imaginary” and made the construction indivisible. I am not who to give an opinion about this, but was accepted by most physicists, even so it looks that it was no clearly understand by most of them.
“Space-time” we can say that while there is consensus on the mathematical significance of space-time in theoretical physics, for more than hundred years there has been no consensus on the nature “of space-time itself”.
I think that possibly Einstein did not believe necessary to emphasize in the “space-time" construction “mathematical meaning", believing that this was sufficiently clear.
I suppose there it is as many descriptions of “space-time” as physic theories are. As I said Einstein was the first that use the construction in a theory and made it unsolvable, it looks that nobody or almost nobody read the short verbal Einstein definition of “space-time” “Ideas and Opinions” Einstein ISBN - 440 04150 150, page 365.
“There is no such a thing as an empty space without field. Space-time does not claim existence on its own, but only as a structural quality of the field”…..” “It requires the idea of the field as the representative of reality, in combination with the general principle of relativity”
Knowing that the so called time in fact is “movement” we have “space-movement” as he said these don’t claim existence on its own, this allowed as to interpret “space-time” as A continuous moving and changing (“movement” time), disposition or distribution (space), of reality (the “field”: matter-energy, and its different “states” and different forces) which curved their own structure (more like spheroid), around massive and no so massive bodies of reality, (also, “field”: matter energy, and forces) both of which it generates (some way?) the gravitational force among themselves.
I never read the Einstein “space-time” verbal description in any book or paper of any physicist; ¡I suppose they rather have their own!. Usually people don’t know why “space-movement” can’t be separated, as you can see, it is clear, it is only one thing the “field structural disposition by “movement”. To have “movement” you should have something that moves. “space-movement” does not claim existence on its own, these only are structural qualities, that has not physical existence without the field.
I thought the field “space-movement” as a gross general description of everything.
There is not energy without “movement” or “movement” without energy, couldn’t be energy and “movement” the same thing?
The so called “time” or movement is a quality or property of everything with physical existence. Designing a theory I think must include (“time”) movement, so the people who does it, feel force to invent a meaning and characteristics for it, which of course don’t correspond to reality. So as a discipline outsider, I permit myself to doubt of the correctness of those theories. Note that Einstein didn’t even try to define its meaning or speculate about its characteristics, even he usually made an effort not to refer at it as “time” and instead as I said before, he will rather use “the clock”.
Time is not a thing that flows neither has ticks as long 10-43 (On the loop quantum gravity theory) second or of any other length. Men decided to fraction “constant and uniform” movement and the length of their fractions, “time” has not physical existence, I repeat “time” is a men created system base on sun passage, later on earth rotation movement “Constant and Uniform movement”, made to measure all kinds of movements which integrates every physically existent change and transformation in nature.
As a system that it is, never form part or integrates any physical event, such as the described in “Loop Quantum Theory”. Only “movement” integrates every and all physical events. what people would call, empiric or experimental “time” meaning
In the “Constant and Uniform” movement measurement”, or the so called “time” as the name describe the movement, doesn’t admit the possibility of an instant or a now, because is continuous, much less being discrete (ticks). That’s why relative positions of things can’t be of great precision, this agree with Peter Lynds( student of physics which at the third time he wrote his manuscript, it was published in “Foundation of Physics Journal) He rightly said. that the “uncertainty principle is not necessary”, this position fit perfectly with my “time” definition as “constant and uniform “movement which is continuous Because as we know, everything is moving, always are moving.(that’s no mater how slow they move, ¡they move!).
With my best whishes
Héctor
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 00:54 GMT
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
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 13:09 GMT
Paul,
A nicely thought out and written essay covering many aspects closely in common with much of mine, including 'design'. You can be assured that I really can't reconcile your 2.6 with it, though maybe we're both saying something upsetting as I too have had a number of anonymous 1's.
I can't disagree with your creationist conclusion though I conclude we can't conclude with certainty, having identified a mechanism to allow rather more of consciousness (and even an RNA mutation model!) from hierarchical levels of interactions than yours. None the less recursion to some 'start point' or action remains none zero.
Questions I would ask of yours are; "Motion" in relation to what?, and; what about the fundamental case of rotation? Perhaps read mine before deeper discussion on these? I look forward to your comments and/or questions.
Nicely done.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 03:29 GMT
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
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 10:36 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 19:17 GMT
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
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 02:26 GMT
My comment on Peter Jackson’s paper’s page:
Dear Peter,
In your previous comment to me you say “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.”
This is a very good example of...
view entire post
My comment on Peter Jackson’s paper’s page:
Dear Peter,
In your previous comment to me you say “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.”
This is a very good example of something that I have found concerning most people in this world and that is that they are extremists. When confronted with an observation, most will look for the most immediately conveniently found answer and accept that as the true answer and tend to reject all other answers. In the above example you say both answers may result and you are right in that observation because it would be likely that any who were standing looking to the north when the sun came up would give one answer and those who were looking south would give the other answer. A true scientist on the other hand, would look for all of the observational information and then give a complete answer based on all of it. First after seeing the sun come up and go down several times he would come to the conclusion that either the sun was going around the earth or the earth was rotating on its axis. To determine which, he would look at the background stars and see that they also seemed to be moving in coordination with the sun’s movements. This would mean that either the sun and all of the stars, etc. were revolving around the earth or the earth was rotating on its axis. The logical conclusion would be that since the sun and all of the stars would almost certainly contain much more mass than the earth, the earth must be rotating on its axis. If he then stood facing north when the sun came up he would see the sun come up on his right side. If the sun was considered to be relatively stationary in comparison to the earth during one rotation time, he would come to the conclusion that the earth was rotating clockwise when looked at from his current position or if he were to back up off of the earth and move down until he was above the South Pole. If he then went back to the equator and turned around so he was facing south, when the sun came up it would come up on his left side. From this he would see that the earth was traveling to his left. From this he would come to the conclusion that it was rotating counterclockwise when looked at from his current position or if he were to back up off of the earth and move down until he was above the North Pole. If he then stood facing east, he would see that as he continued to travel around the curve of the earth, he would be traveling down compared to his current position which he would consider to be the top for reference purposes relative to his standing position on the earth with the earth under him. If he then turned to face west he would see that the earth in front of him was coming up over the curve of the earth toward him forcing him to move backwards compared to his initial position. From all of this information put together he could truthfully say that the earth was rotating clockwise and counterclockwise and was traveling up and down and also to the right and to the left depending on the given input parameter conditions. Not to say that there are not any other possible parameter variations or ways of looking at them.
Of course, we do not always have time to analyze all observable details, but when confronted with another possibility than what is currently believed, most people will just deny it and never even check it out to see if it has merits. That reaction is one of the things you have to be prepared for in this world when you try to give a new concept or even a different way of looking at an old one. So when that happens to you, just smile within yourself and think, “That’s earthlings for you.” Wait a minute that somehow doesn’t seem quite acceptable. How about, “That’s humons for you.” Still could use some tweaking. Maybe, “That’s man for you.” I may have to consider that a little more yet. Just be glad when you find any of the few who are able and willing to think, regardless of where they are from or who or what they are. For any who can hear it, think of what God has to go through, he has to try to reach and convince all of us of his love for all of us, most of who are not just denying what he is telling us, but are actively trying to prove that he doesn’t even exist.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 02:56 GMT
Peter Jackson’s comment to me on his paper’s page:
Paul
Wow, that's longer than many essays! I'll try;
"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?
The...
view entire post
Peter Jackson’s comment to me on his paper’s page:
Paul
Wow, that's longer than many essays! I'll try;
"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?
The sphere surface is the plane wavefront of any signal. Imagine a supernove in space. The light travels at c in all directions creating a growing sphere (just one of a packed sequence of them). If it hasn't reached an obsever he hasn't yet seen it!
Now image a rotating 'photon' or pair of charges at any point. The propagation (translation) at 'c' produces the helix we find in Photonics at ALL points on the sphere surface. If the rotational axis does NOT orthogonal to the sphere surface we get elliptical polarity. As the sphere expands the radius of each orbit increases. However; 'c' is LOCAL so although the 'sphere expansion' rate is c (or 2c considering the whole thing) the speed round each local orbital path CANNOT increase so the orbital time increases.
Simple geometry shows this can produces cosmic redshift - WITHOUT requiring acceleration expenasion of the universe!
Back to 'c'. Propagation speed modulated locally by fermion interactions. If ALL fermions re-emit at c then we'll always FIND c locally so NO PROBLEM EXISTS which needs paradoxical mathematical gymnastics to solve!
"....How would this develop the complex molecular structure of RNA?". The 4 dots preceeding that sentence represent a lot of doctrinal assumptions. As in computors, it only takes one tiny original input or design flaw to make EVERYTHING it produces from then on illogical gobbledygook full of inconsistencies, anomalies and paradoxes . That's what's happened. Revert to my 'Discrete Field Model' etc essays 5 years ago onwards and the adjusted input removing all those inconsistencies, anomalies and paradoxes is explained. Any 'shear' perturbation of the condensate produces identiacal 'pairs', with reverse spin orientations (the 'Higgs process'). RNA is at a much larger scale with more complex 'proteins' but the fundamental structure is fractal.
"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?"
The (smaller fractal) galaxy model shows us best. Not quite ALL matter is recycled. Most is re-ionized (solving that one!) o and the old is mixed with the new, i.e the hypervelocity stars already spat out whole on the axis of our own AGN WON'T be re-ionized this time round. Same with the outermost halo matter seen in 'ring' galaxies. i.e. Google Centaurus A. (note also the helical form of the superluminal (collimated) jet outflows) A mass of evidence exists, identified in this paper; http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf or Academia, or DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603.
Enough for now.
Peter
My comment on Peter's paper's page:
Dear Peter,
The fact that you answered me without resorting to abstract math and used visual examples of your concepts lets me know that you have greater visualization abilities than many in this world at this time. The next thing that I need to know is your current level of structural conceptual understanding.
If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a photon at the supernova and goes through the center of the photon, do you consider the photon’s shape to be a rotating sphere traveling out away from the supernova along that line at the speed c, as an object that consists of one or more point objects that travel in an orbital pattern around that line while at the same time traveling at speed c in the direction of the line, or as some other form or shape?
Do you consider the shape or form of the photon to just be the shape that the motions are traveling in and the motions are the real existence or do you consider the photon to have some other substance beyond just the motions that you mention? It looks like you are saying that the photon’s size is increasing, so that it takes a longer time to complete one rotation on its axis. Is that the case? If that is the case then that size increase will grow very quickly due to the rapid increase in size of the wave front sphere with distance from the source. I could be wrong, but it would seem that this would result in a very great red shift even at a short distance from the source and in even 1 light year from the source the red shift would be very extreme, much more than is generally ever measured in light from actual stars.
When a photon interacts with an electron in an atom, such that it causes the electron to go to the next higher level in the atom and in the process the photon disappears, what happens to the photon in your understanding? If the electron later drops back down into its normal lower level and in the process a photon is generated, where does the photon come from?
What is the condensate made of and how does it create matter particles when shearing motion is added to it? Is it like the vacuum energy of quantum mechanics or something else? What is a real world example with actual observable data of how the identical pairs (such as 2 electrons) that you mention have actually been produced? Most of man’s current data, that I have looked at, only talks about the production of a matter particle and its antiparticle in pair production.
When you say that the fundamental structure of an RNA molecule is fractal, I am assuming that you are talking about the backbone structure of an RNA molecule being the same throughout the molecule and that the same small number of molecular structures are used to generate the stored codes (that contain the pattern and number of amino acids required to build each of the protein machines in the living creature) are also used throughout the molecule, but the important part of the structure, which is the actual coding for the structure of each protein machine is individual for that machine and can vary greatly from that of any of the other codes in its order of and pattern of the codons, etc. It is sort of like saying that a video disk with a movie recorded on it is just a simple disk of plastic with small holes burned in its substrate that are all the same size, etc. and not noticing the great variation of where those holes are positioned that generates the complex code that allows the generation of all of the images that make up the movie. The information is generally not fractal in structure. It is generating and storing the proper valid information of how each of the 200 or more protein machines that are needed to produce a very simple living creature with no errors that is difficult because there are too many possible code combinations that could be produced for the structure of each protein with only 1 of them actually being the valid 1 to ever produce the valid 1 by random self-assembly and the RNA molecule would not only have to get that one code right, but would also then need to do the same for each of the other 199 protein machine codes. If an error is made anywhere in any of those 200 codes, the RNA molecule would not work. Just the number of possible different protein machines that could be built that have an amino acid chain length of 100 amino acids, that could be coded for in the RNA molecule is more than 1 x 10^220. If you count all of those that have all of the other possible chain lengths the total is much greater than that. For comparison to that, it has been estimated that there are about 1 x 10^80 elementary matter particles in the universe. This means that if you could use all of the matter in the universe to try to self-assemble that RNA molecule, you could not produce a large enough portion of all of the possible ones to have any reasonable possibility of producing the one that you needed to use to make the first living creature.
I looked at the paper that you provided the link to and I found the concept to be interesting. It would require the existence of various phenomena elements that have not actually been observed and proven by man, as far as I have seen so far. If we first look at its feasibility to actually produce your desired result of an infinitely recycling galaxy, I do find some apparent problems with the concept. First you say that the new galaxy that is produced during each cycle has a greater mass than the one from the previous cycle. It also looks like the cycle times have slowed down with each cycle. This would be expected to ionize the greater mass contained in each subsequent cycle. It would also be expected that as the accretion process progressed a point would be reached where the remaining matter that had not yet been accreted would not possess the power needed to keep the process going, so that it would die out without fully accreting all of the matter from the previous galaxy. Most of that left over matter would likely be higher elements that could not be fused in stars. It would mostly be located in the accretion zone of the new galaxy and would likely at least initially hinder the accretion of matter from the new galaxy. This would likely only be a temporary problem because the accretion flow would likely move that matter out of its path by interactions with the accreted particles, but it would be likely that some of these accreted particles would be converted into heavier atoms that could not be fused in the process. This heavy matter would likely remain in the plane of the previous galaxy and would then become part of the galaxy of the next cycle. It would mostly be near the center of that galaxy and could interfere with the production of long life stars in that area, which could interfere with the production of the power needed for the new accretion cycle. These types of things could add to the overall increase in the cycle times over many cycle generations. The big problem that I see is that as the cycle time increases over many cycles, it would get to the point that it would be longer than the lifetime of most of the stars in the current galaxy. This would cause a loss of power to the accretion process that would result in a greater portion of the galaxy’s matter content not being accreted. All of this unusable matter would continue to build up over many cycles to the point that the amount of accretion that would be produced by a cycle would not be enough to produce a new functional galaxy. The process would then end either in a very big black hole or in a very super supernova type explosion or both, which would then end that galaxy. If it ended in a black hole all of that matter would ultimately be reradiated in the form of gamma radiation according to most of man’s current theories. If it ended in the explosion, it would result in much of that matter being converted into higher mass matter even up to and including uranium by the explosion. This matter would then be spread out in space over time and could be taken into and cause problems in other galaxies. After all of the galaxies died out, the remaining matter would ultimately be drawn into black holes and be converted into gamma radiation. Over time this gamma radiation would be red shifted by interactions with sub-energy particles until it all was transformed into sub-energy particles. Over a very long time the sub-energy particles would interact with each other until they all had the same speed in the same direction and all interactions in the universe would cease. That is the ultimate result of entropy. I will stop there for this time, so as not to get concepts scattered too widely.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 21:00 GMT
Paul,
response to your last long post on mine copied below;
If I missed anything important previously do re-raise it.
I've now read through all your comments, needing another essay to answer. I saw nothing I disagreed with, but I'll try to take your latest points above.
"If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a photon at the supernova and...
view entire post
Paul,
response to your last long post on mine copied below;
If I missed anything important previously do re-raise it.
I've now read through all your comments, needing another essay to answer. I saw nothing I disagreed with, but I'll try to take your latest points above.
"If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a photon at the supernova and goes through the center of the photon, do you consider the photon’s shape to be a rotating sphere traveling out away from the supernova along that line at the speed c, as an object that consists of one or more point objects that travel in an orbital pattern around that line while at the same time traveling at speed c in the direction of the line, or as some other form or shape?"
No2 is closest, but the path has 'helicity', the radius expands and the dynamics are fractal, so maybe better described as toroidal (perhaps twin helices for electrons). 'Particle like' when 'detected' (from ahead) and a 'wavelike' track if 'observed while going past' (impossible of course). The 'speed c away from the supernova' also becomes increasingly unlikely due to interactions/ requantizations at c in the centre of mass frame by quanta in some other state of motion ('inertial frame').
Do you consider the shape or form of the photon to just be the shape that the motions are traveling in and the motions are the real existence or do you consider the photon to have some other substance beyond just the motions that you mention? It looks like you are saying that the photon’s size is increasing, so that it takes a longer time to complete one rotation on its axis. Is that the case? If that is the case then that size increase will grow very quickly due to the rapid increase in size of the wave front sphere with distance from the source. I could be wrong, but it would seem that this would result in a very great red shift even at a short distance from the source and in even 1 light year from the source the red shift would be very extreme, much more than is generally ever measured in light from actual stars.
Yes, and should only be problematic if you don't account for requantizations.
When a photon interacts with an electron in an atom..." Good question. I haven't yet thought about possible answers.
"What is the condensate made of and how does it create matter particles when shearing motion is added to it? Is it like the vacuum energy of quantum mechanics or something else? What is a real world example with actual observable data of how the identical pairs (such as 2 electrons) that you mention have actually been produced? Most of man’s current data, that I have looked at, only talks about the production of a matter particle and its antiparticle in pair production."
Just run your finger through water. But don't be fooled by the (easier to observe) surface boundary dynamics. The 'vortices' are 3D. In a 'vacuum' they're made of 'Comprathene'. A silly answer 'medium' I invented long ago to demonstrate the silly question. It's really just fractal spin states, like water and turtles - 'all the way down'. The 'bottom' is well beyond the capability of slow motion giants line mankind the even conceive let alone 'see'. ('antiparticles' are nonsense, just the tail of the 'heads' or yang of the ying)
"When you say that the fundamental structure of an RNA molecule is fractal..."
Macro 'effects' can emerge at any 'scale' in the fractal sequence (How could/why should they not?) and interact ('couple') with other dynamics at that scale. Something else shocking; NO one protean should be precisely identical to any one other in the universe! Like grains of sand and snowflakes at our scale, stem cells, atoms & fermions.. etc. At some 'higher order' (I prefer; 'smaller scale') that may cease being true, but god only knows where!
"I looked at the paper that you provided the link to and I found the concept to be interesting. It would require the existence of various phenomena elements that have not actually been observed and proven by man, as far as I have seen so far"
You just need to look a little further, but little further than the Plank probe, the HubbleST and the annals of the MNRAS for instance. The secret is to discern and recognise what perhaps even the author hasn't from the findings, often by making unseen connections. All I describe is consistent with findings, and well referenced. The model only 'resolves' anomalous findings, and many of them! What 'new' mechanism do we need to see?' If we see shots of two cars heading for each other, then one of two mangled messes spinning away from each other, do we need some new physics just because out model suggests they may NOT have passed through each other as current theory suggests!
" ...the remaining matter that had not yet been accreted would not possess the power needed to keep the process going," Correct. The new AGN is 'born' on the orthogonal axis and a host of anomalus older stars in holo's and sattelite galaxies etc etc and explained along with the orthogonal outer rotation.
" The big problem that I see is that as the cycle time increases over many cycles, it would get to the point that it would be longer than the lifetime of most of the stars in the current galaxy." that may be true, but by that time the larger fractal has long started recycling the whole lot anyway! (maybe another 15Gyr). Or if not, then sure, a supernova may result. Whichever way, the greater majority of the matter seems to be re-ionized each time. I don't like unsupported assumptions and think you may have been getting into a few towards the end there!
I hope that helps your understanding of the model. Do take up the references to see the massive and wide gamut of anomalies and paradoxes the model can resolve!
Perhaps more importantly it's fits into the great jigsaw puzzle with other pieces that do the same; i.e. uniting relativity and SR, and all ultra Occam!
Best
peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 16:59 GMT
Dear Peter,
First let me say that I am not trying to discredit all of your concepts. It looks like you are at least very close to coming to the conclusion that it is really the motions that are the true existing most basic entities from which all things are made. That is an insight that very few people in this world have attained to. The next step after that is to come to the...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
First let me say that I am not trying to discredit all of your concepts. It looks like you are at least very close to coming to the conclusion that it is really the motions that are the true existing most basic entities from which all things are made. That is an insight that very few people in this world have attained to. The next step after that is to come to the understanding that since energy photons and matter particles can be broken down into basic linear motions, you have to get an understanding of how they can be built up using only basic linear motions. Since linear motions always travel in a straight line in the absence of an interaction, you must find a way to generate the interactions necessary to generate curved motions, etc. It also looks like you understand that in order for a matter particle to have a static mass effect that is the same in all three dimensions, the angular motions that create this effect must be three dimensional instead of just a two dimensional rotation, as an example. All that you need now is to understand how a three dimensional composite cyclical angular motion can be generated from simple linear motions and you will understand most of the basic concepts needed to explain the structure of matter particles. Energy photons require a simpler back and forth non curved cyclical angular motion to create their frequency, wave length, and dynamic mass effects. Since a matter particle is just an energy photon that contains the additional curved angular motion mentioned above to cause it to travel in a repetitive cyclical enclosed curved path at the speed of light instead of traveling in a straight line at that speed, it also contains the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects similar to that of the energy photon that is contained within it. Field structures are also composed of simple motions that I call sub-energy particles. Once you understand all three of them you can then figure out how they are combined together to make atoms and how they operate or interact together, etc.
These things are much more important to understand than any attempt to try to justify an infinite universe when entropy precludes that possibility. Once you understand that the total amount of motion is the only thing that is truly conserved and, therefore, can’t be increased or decreased in the universe, you will begin to see why it is impossible to use the energy that is produced by the fusion of light elements in stars to turn all of the heavier elements that are produced by that fusion back into the light elements that they originally were. That would require total 100 percent conversion efficiency. In actual fact since the fusion process is a normal entropy motion dispersion process, reversing it would not only require the use of all of the originally radiated energy, all of which could not be recovered, but would also require an additional amount of energy to cause the process to run in the direction that is opposite to the normal entropy dispersion process. To put it more directly, it takes more energy to break down the heavier elements that are produced by fusion reactions then the amount of energy that is freed from their atoms binding energy during the fusion process that creates them. Since matter particles are composed of motions you can’t just create new ones from nothing because you can’t create the motions that they contain from nothing. This would mean that if the galaxy mass were to continue to increase over time it would require the continual introduction of motion into it from outside of it. That would not be practical. That could possibly happen for some time if the matter between the galaxies was slowly taken into the galaxies, but that source of matter would eventually run out. Everybody wants a free lunch, but the universe doesn’t serve it. You always have to pay more than you get back from the universe because it is slowly decreasing the motion content of entities that have more and transferring it to those that have less, thus decreasing the total range of motions, while at the same time dispersing all of the motions evenly throughout space. That is what entropy is all about. Because of this the most efficient way to store matter particles in atoms is in the middle of the range of atom sizes. That is why the lightest atoms can give up or free motion through fusion into heavier atoms. Once you get to iron it takes more energy to fuse them into heavier atoms than is freed in the process because you are too near the center most efficient energy storage part of the range. Of course the atoms at the high end of the size scale have the opposite problem because as you go away from the center of the range in that direction it takes more energy to store all of those particles in one atom than it does in the middle range atoms, so the natural entropy reaction for them is to break down into lighter atoms through fission. In either case if you go in the direction that is opposite to the natural energy flow, it requires the addition of all of the energy that had been freed from the fusion or fission reactions plus an additional amount because some of the applied energy is always dissipated and lost in one way or another in the process. I can understand your desire to believe that the universe is never ending because it makes it easier to believe that the tremendous complexity of living creatures could somehow have come about by some natural process if it can be over an infinite amount of time, etc., but entropy makes the world run down over time and that can’t be stopped. That is one of the problems with man’s current quantum mechanics is that over time many foolish concepts have been added to it that make it look possible to do such things. It is not until you get the understanding of the level of structure that generates the quantum effects that you can sort out the fact from the fiction. If you continue to work on understanding the basic structures of matter particles, energy photons, and sub-energy particles as mentioned above, you will come to understand these things and all of the indeterminate fog will be removed. Of course maybe I am just talking gibberish and you have it all figured out already.
To cover a few things in your response:
1. When you talk about requantizations, I am assuming that you are saying that energy photons interact with matter particles on the way from the emitting star to your eyes or other sensor and are thereby frequency up shifted every so often to restore their frequency to the higher level that we detect. I see a few problems with that concept.
a. During the individual interactions the amount of frequency up shift that a given photon would receive would be variable depending on the amount of energy that the matter particle brought to the interaction and other variables.
b. The interactions would be random so some photons would intersect and interact with many matter particles while others would go all the way from the star to your sensor without any interactions, since the matter particles would not just be sitting in one place, but would be moving around at various velocities.
c. Depending on the direction of interaction, etc. a photon could actually be down shifted instead of up shifted during an interaction.
The end result of all of these things and also other things would be a great variation in sensed frequency from the photons coming from any star, so that you would not see all of them red or blue shifted from normal, etc. as is usually observed.
2. It seems that you consider antimatter particles to just be matter particles that are turned upside down compared to each other. It has been demonstrated that when a matter particle interacts with an antimatter particle, such as an electron with a positron they both turn into energy photons. If one is just the other one upside down, it seems that it would be possible to pass two streams of electrons through opposite fields that would align all of the electrons in one stream in the same alignment with each other and opposite to those in the other stream and then bring the two streams together to cause them to all turn into photons and generate a lot of energy. Moreover, if they are just at opposite rotational directions, it would seem that free electrons would be at random rotational positions compared with other free electrons and we would, therefore, often see them aligned naturally, so that they would be converted into energy photons and there should then be a great shortage of electrons in the universe.
3. Fractal structuring generates similar structures at various size levels. You might be able to use such a system to generate RNA molecules, but the code patterns for the protein machines that would be contained in the RNA molecules can vary greatly for each code pattern of the 200 or so complete codes that would need to be stored in the molecule to allow it to be used to generate the needed protein machines to make the first living creature. It is, therefore, not subject to fractal duplication except that an RNA molecule could possibly be duplicated with the same code that happened to be randomly formed in the first RNA molecule that happened to come about in some way naturally, but since that first molecule would not likely get the valid code patterns in it randomly, duplicating it would not be of much practical use. Fractal duplication would not help much to produce the particular RNA molecule that contained the complete valid code pattern set for all of the machines. It takes intelligence to determine the jobs that each machine needs to do and then to design the machine to do that work and then to build the first Molecule that contains all of the right codes. There is no random short cut due to the extremely large number of possible proteins that could be made, most of which would not produce machines that would work. All indications are that at small scales things can be identical. The fewer parts that are contained in something the easier it is to assemble it in the same way each time. When it comes to matter particles and energy photons, etc. the built in dimensional structuring components generate duplicate entities due to the constants that are built into the dimensional system. There are various servo mechanisms that are built into the structure of entities such as atoms, etc. that control conformation of their parts to basic structural design requirements, thus limiting variability in their operation. It is much easier to have an atom or molecule missing in a crystal, etc. in large scale objects because they are not operationally bond to the degree that the smaller entities are and they contain so many more parts.
4. When looking at the accretions of galaxies what methods do they currently use to determine what the accretions are composed of and the level of their structure, such as plasma and if so what elements are included, whole atoms and if so what elements are included, molecules and if so what complexity level are included, large scale objects and if so what size scale range is included? I ask this because you mentioned that in the milky-way galaxy several whole stars have been accreted. On the other hand, it seems that the thrust of your argument would be that it is all broken down into protons and electrons.
5. My assumptions were based on the information that you supplied that indicated that the mass of the galaxy would increase with each cycle and that the cycle times have been increasing. It is only logical to assume that if the mass increases, it would take a longer time to complete the next accretion in order to accrete that extra mass. It would be reasonable to then extrapolate that increase in mass and cycle times into the future and see where that would lead us, especially since you propose it to be an infinite cycle. It looks like it would work ok until the cycle time became greater than the average life time of the stars in the galaxy. Then the fuel source for the accretion would be used up leaving more and more burned out remnants of stars not accreted at the end of each new cycle. This material would mostly be heavier atoms that could not be fused in the new cycle’s stars. It would, however, be drawn into and become parts of those stars, thus adding to their mass. This would mean that the stars in the galaxy would become larger and larger with each new cycle. Large stars fuse more source material much quicker than smaller stars do because they need to be at higher temperatures to balance the pull of gravity on their greater masses. This would use up the available fuel quicker with each cycle. They also have much shorter lifetimes than smaller stars. Stars the size of the sun might last about 10 billion years, but stars about 60 times the size of the sun would burn out in as little as 3 million years. This would mean that the fuel source for the accretion would be depleted much faster as the cycles progressed. At the same time the larger stars usually end their lives in supernovas that generate much heavier elements even including lead and uranium, etc. This would add even more heavy elements to the stars in the next cycle making them burn out sooner. Over a long enough time the accretion process would completely die out because there would not be enough accretion to enable the production of functional stars for the next cycle. There are several assumptions used above, but they are all in line with man’s current understanding of the ways that stars function. Supernova explosions don’t generally break atoms down into lower elements. The temperatures and pressures created by the explosion tend to condense the matter into higher more heavy elements.
Since your model is based more on realistic structures of matter particles, etc. than the currently believed point object construction it is no wonder that you come out being able to explain things that can’t be acceptably explained by the main accepted theory structure. The more that you learn about the detailed structure of the basic particles and how they work together to make larger scale structures the more your theory will be able to explain and the less likely it will be that you will get sidetracked into unworkable concepts. I would not worry too much about uniting relativity and SR, and quantum mechanics, etc. because they contain some truth and some false information. As you progress you will see the good parts of them and they will then fit together. At the same time you will also be able to see the false parts of them and be able to not get caught up in following their dead ends. It will come naturally as you gain in understanding of how things really work. Occam’s razor or the concept that the simplest answer is usually right is good to remember, especially when you hear people talking about multiverses, 20 or 30 extra dimensions, or traveling forward or backward in time, etc. Sometimes a few things must be added to get things to work, but it is best to add only what is necessary to accomplish that. Continue the good work. Sorry I wasn’t paying attention to how big this was getting. I hope it is not too much.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 01:08 GMT
Dear Paul
Thank you for all your elaborate replies. FQXi computer system did not show the replies. I was checking my essay every 12 hours, for the last many days. I was using the option in tab
Order posts by: … most recent first option only. It never showed your replies.
Today I checked in normal way, but opened the link
show all replies , and found all replies to my surprise. You even wrote them on 12 Feb 2017. I am sorry for this delay and mishap.
Probably they (FQXi) have to check the software once.
I will reply all your
very nice and encouraging replies and well thought observations one by one , It may take few more days…
Thank you very much for all your time and blessings…
Best Regards
=snp.gupta
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 21:25 GMT
Dear Paul
There will other replies , which I will not be posting here,I request you to check on my paper
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 first comment
I read your paper. It contains some information that seems to me to be contrary to...
view entire post
Dear Paul
There will other replies , which I will not be posting here,I request you to check on my paper
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 first comment
I read your paper. It contains some information that seems to me to be contrary to man’s usual use of words. Such as:
clearly see that the light from distant Galaxy when passes grazingly near a gravitating mass like Sun the incident frequency of the radiation will increase (Red shifted) when the relative movement of the gravitating body is in opposite direction to EM radiation and the frequency will reduce when the relative movement of the body is in same direction (Blue shifted).
Since Blue light has a higher frequency than red light, an increase in frequency is usually called blue shifted and a decrease in frequency is called red shifted. In the above excerpt from your paper you use the opposite form. Is that an error in your paper or is there some reason for the form that you used? It is mentioned that way in several places in your paper.
You are right that the frequency of an energy photon can be increased into the range of matter particles, but just increasing the frequency to that level does not cause the photon to change into a matter particle. Gamma rays are energy photons that contain enough motion to make a matter particle, but they don’t all turn into matter particles. How does your theory explain how that transition from an energy photon to a matter particle works?”………………
Basically It is the UGF (Universal Gravitation force) which is acting on every particle, which decides future movement of any particle or bigger body. UGF will be big near some gravitating body. In that paper the frequency shift is predicted. Thank you for telling me the small correction, which I will incorporate in the next version of the paper. The words blue and red shifts got inter changed…
Dynamic Universe model is based on Virial theorem. So energy portion was automatically taken care of… No problem…
These frequency changes will be visible in the spectrum. I am a theoretical person, never seen through telecope….
The rest mass is only for only for the sake of measurement of mass value. There is no “Rest” as it is, every particle, or mass will be moving and changing dynamically due to UGF.
Thank you very much for all your time and blessings…
Best Regards
=snp.gupta (Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta)
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 00:55 GMT
Dear Paul,
I posted 5 replies on my essay page. You may please have a look....
Best Regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 22:10 GMT
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
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 18:21 GMT
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
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 05:27 GMT
Dear Paul,
I like your questions and answers and give your essay a high rating. For the philosophical contest, your thinking might be a bit too theological, but I would not reproach you for that. Accepting and appreciating your arguments, I hope you will find some more ideas in your support in our essay.
Cheers, Alexey Burov.
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 21:13 GMT
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
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 01:38 GMT
Dear Paul,
I posted this on my essay, for the beautiful question you posted there.
What a wonderful analysis. Very nice question indeed! Probably my this answer will satisfy, but I still feel lot more to be discussed with you. Really wonderful…!
I kept the entire question, divided it into small appropriate parts and answered them. For further discussion please.
I...
view entire post
Dear Paul,
I posted this on my essay, for the beautiful question you posted there.
What a wonderful analysis. Very nice question indeed! Probably my this answer will satisfy, but I still feel lot more to be discussed with you. Really wonderful…!
I kept the entire question, divided it into small appropriate parts and answered them. For further discussion please.
I don’t think that you understand what I am trying to say to you, so I will try using a different approach. ……………
Reply……………….
OK
Your words……….
For the most part, fusion does not actually change matter particles into energy photons. ……………
Reply……………….
OK
Your words………. 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. ……………
Reply……………….
This is what happens in SUN and Stars, OK Good, thank you
Your words……….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. ……………
Reply……………….
OK Good, Understood
Your words……….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. ……………
Reply……………….
Ok Energy released, higher atoms formed…
Your words………. 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. ……………
Reply……………….
Ok…. No worry…
Your words………. 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. ……………
Reply……………….
All these happen at the surface of star, but in the core of star under high pressure and temperature, many things happen. Probably we have to study together and push-out a combined paper with all these energy equations…. Can you please help me…. Your words………. 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. ……………
Reply……………….
This is what exactly happens in SUN and Stars, and then planets are formed after energy loss and cooling down.
our words………. 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? ……………
Reply……………….
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 Your words……….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. ……………
Reply……………….
Good thinking, there can be other ways.
Your words………. 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. ……………
Reply……………….
Correct, that’s what Dynamic Universe Model proposes
Your words……….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. ……………
Reply……………….
Any way probably I got it NOW. I understood it probably.
I want to add some more to this wonderful analysis…
It is not only hydrogen atoms that are left out, but all the heavier molecules upto uranium, which are formed due to different nuclear reactions. There are many types of high energy particle bombardments that happen inside core of Stars. The inside core of our own cool earth is not cool. Many elements are manufactured.
We have seen Novae and Supernovae and explosions of planets. All these are some of converters. We will have to study high energy physics a little more. I did not say study of Dynamic Universe Model stopped. There is lot more work needs to be done. Lots ope people have to put their brains on it. But I have the hope Best wishes
=snp.gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 00:50 GMT
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
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 23:11 GMT
Dear Paul N Butler!
I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic
I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it.
If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better.
I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.
The concept of moving space-matter helped me:
- The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;
- Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter;
- Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz;
- Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe;
- To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in his essay I gave The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural . Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space. Hope you rate my essay as high as I am yours. I am waiting your post.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 18:27 GMT
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
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 11:44 GMT
Dear Paul N Butler!
Thank you for enlightening me about the Holy Trinity. You explained the concept of moving space-matter in the language of the Holy Scriptures. I'm not trying because of their sins, to preach the Word of God, as not worthy to do it. However, I wish to explore the moves of God that create our world. God has many ways and they are all infinite. They have no beginning and no end, so our world is endless.
You want to describe the world with words, but this is not enough to predict the path of God in the future – this requires mathematical formulas. New Cartesian Physic words and mathematical formulas. I hope you'll love my essay, as did I now for you.
The principle of Heisenberg in New Cartesian Physic indicates the strength of the space-matter in an infinitely small point and the softness of large areas, which allows them to take with them in our world.
All the best,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 23:21 GMT
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
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 17:44 GMT
Paul
Sometimes I start to believe that space is the body of God, which contains the beginning of everything that is happening in the world. I agree with you that the person imagines that he is the smartest. In fact, he received from God through the Word only a little part from the fact that it is available. A man not given to understand all the words of God. Therefore, the description of creation in the Bible was written to trigger in his mind are images of the world that he was capable of then. Only now we understand that it was a child's view of the world peculiar to us in early life. Man did not invent himself, all thoughts he takes from nature by analogy. In the course of his life in his mind many images of the world and he begins to think about his creation differently than is written in the Bible.
The space, like God, exists in the movement. The movement makes him infinite, without boundary or end. The emptiness in space like a God, no, because it heals his education circular or oscillatory motion. The photon energy is locked inside the corpuscle in which it is moving in three dimensions the wave of Compton.
In New Cartesian Physic all defined in terms that are familiar and understandable.
Your essay I have already praised as excellent.
I wish you success!
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 23:09 GMT
Dear Dizhechko,
God says: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, (Jesus Christ, the Word) which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Just before Jesus died on the cross he told his disciples that he would not leave them alone, but would send them another comforter (the Holy Ghost) and he said to them: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and...
view entire post
Dear Dizhechko,
God says: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, (Jesus Christ, the Word) which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Just before Jesus died on the cross he told his disciples that he would not leave them alone, but would send them another comforter (the Holy Ghost) and he said to them: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. After God made Adam in his image, he took a rib out of him and made Eve who is the image of man. If doing this is part of the image of God making the universe and man in it, it looks like he may have taken his motions out of a place in his bosom and placed his son (the Word) in that place that he had evacuated his motions out of and then used the Word to make the universe in him including us, using some of those motions that he had taken out of that area to add back in to make the sub-energy, energy photons, and matter particles, etc. in our universe. I have not seen enough evidence in the scriptures yet to say that I am sure things happened that way, but what I have seen so far agrees with that possibility. If that is the case then that space is in God and the universe including us are in him and in his Word and we are made of motions that were part of him, but since he evacuated himself from that space in him and then used motions that were part of him, but had been removed from himself to make these things we cannot say that we are joined to him as parts of him at this time. That joining is to take place between him and his body members in the new world that comes after this one ends. God may be infinite, but if the universe was made in a fixed area within him, this universe would have to be finite. I have not seen anything one way or the other about how that will be in the world to come. I have come to the conclusion over a long period of time that all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding come from God, not from man or from nature. I have had too many times that I desired to know some specific thing or how something in the world actually works and have worked for many long hours trying to figure it out and not being able to do so and then have the answer just come into me when I am not even thinking about it. This tells me that it was not my work, but was given to me. Since God is the source of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, I believe that it is all given to me or to anyone else by God. God says that he gives gifts to men that differ according to his grace or favour. He will give one gift to one and a different gift to another according to his will. Even Jesus (the Word of God) said the Son can do nothing of himself. If he can’t, then the rest of us who are much less than him certainly can’t either. Beliefs, such as, that one man is smarter than another is just a device invented by men to make people believe that they are either better or worse than others, so that they can take advantage of others in some way and are of no real importance. You are right that we see in part. I don’t claim to know everything. I mentioned one thing above that I don’t have enough information about to say that I can consider it to be the way that it looks to be for sure. I do try to give people the answers that they need to the best of my knowledge, because God tells us that as we receive, we are expected to give, so I do as much as I can. It is true that when you read the scriptures the first time, you will only be able to understand that which your earthly mind can understand, but Jesus said: If you continue in my word, you are my disciples indeed and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Each time you read it the knowledge that you have received in past readings allows you to understand more, so the key to getting understanding is to continue in the Word. You are right that God has placed information about him and the world that he made, in that world or nature to help us to come to and understand him and his works. God tells us that his Word is more sure and that anything that man might think or say that is contrary to his Word is not true. Yes that is a problem that man can have, which is to look at the world and see something and then misapply it to something that it does not actually apply to or to apply it in the wrong way because of lack of knowledge. A lot depends on a person’s individual experiences or lack of them. As an example, I see many people who believe that the static mass effect of a matter particle is caused by rotation like the rotation of the earth on its axis. If that person had taken a bicycle wheel and mounted it on a shaft, so that he could hold onto the shaft on one side of the wheel with one hand and hold onto the shaft on the other side of the wheel with the other hand and then did that and had someone spin the wheel, he would experience that he could move the shaft and wheel up, down, forward, backward, left, or right and it would feel the same whether the wheel was spinning or not. If he tried to move it in any way that would change the direction of its axis of rotation, however, he would feel a greater resistance to that change when the wheel was spinning than when it was not spinning. After that experience he would not likely come to the conclusion that rotation would produce a static mass effect in matter particles that would be the same in interactions from all directions. He would come to understand that the motion would have to be three dimensional so that no matter what direction that the interaction came from it would try to change the three dimensional complex motion axis structure, thus giving the same static mass effect in all interactions. This is something that can be observed in nature, but not all people experience it directly. Of course, there is another way to get that understanding, which is to get that information from someone else who has done that, which is why we need to give to others those things that God has given us to see and understand.
To let me get a better understanding of your theory let me ask some questions. It seems to me that you equate space and matter as being the same thing. Is that true? If yes, is matter/space composed or made of motion in a vortex pattern like in a tornado, etc.? In addition to that does matter/space also consist of other motion that in some way exerts pressure on the vortex motion of the matter to cause it to continue to travel in that curved path rather than to just travel in a straight line like a motion would usually travel in? If it does, is that other motion that exerts the pressure also considered to be a part of that piece of matter/space or is it something else? What is the source of the power that continually causes that motion to continue to exert that pressure on the vortex motion? It would seem to me that if space does not exist except as matter, each matter particle would be of some size and if another particle also existed it would either have to be directly connected to the first particle or it would be completely separate from it with no space in between it and the other particle. As an example, If a large number of matter vortex particles were connected together to form a man and another group of particles were connected to form another man, if the two men had no direct contact with each other, they would be completely isolated from each other with no possible contact with each other because there would be no space between them to travel through to reach each other. Each one’s space would be completely filled by the one man and would not extend beyond him. Is that true or is there some way around that? How can a man look around him and see what looks like empty space between him and some other object made of matter/space? The answers to some of these questions may be obvious depending on the answers to others, but I include them in case the answer is different than I expect it to be. What is the corpuscle that you mention made of and how does it work? I will stop there for now because I will need answers to those questions to understand what I should ask next.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 02:19 GMT
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich’s comment to me on his paper’s page:
Dear Paul!
I am an independent researcher. The existence of God is not the subject of my research. The subject of my research are the formulas derived on the basis of previously conducted experiments and finding links between them, thus to get a unified theory.
You correctly me have understood, "that you...
view entire post
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich’s comment to me on his paper’s page:
Dear Paul!
I am an independent researcher. The existence of God is not the subject of my research. The subject of my research are the formulas derived on the basis of previously conducted experiments and finding links between them, thus to get a unified theory.
You correctly me have understood, "that you equate space and matter as being the same thing. Is that true? If yes, is matter/space of the composed or made of motion in a vortex pattern like in a tornado, etc.?"
This is the principle of identity of space and matter. It came up with not I, and Descartes 400 years ago together with the "is matter/space of the composed or made of motion in a vortex pattern like in a tornado, etc.?"
I added that movement in a straight line is curvilinear motion on a circle of infinitely large radius. Thus, all movements are circular or oscillatory, in General, periodic.
We have to think here not about geometrical space, and the physical space created by moving matter, which is initially completely transparent and we have not felt otherwise as a space. The question arises: - does the nature of rectangular bricks of matter, of which can be folded completely dense space? It is obvious that these bricks no in nature. Remains to think that in space there are holes that it tries to fill, to rule out their existence. However, the formation of new holes and the movement continues endlessly.
To avoid formation of holes, Descartes suggested the existence of an infinitely divisible medium – the ether, which fills all the gaps and makes the space without holes. I would argue that ether is not necessary. The space is continuously moving and continuously continuously fills the resulting hole. There is the eternal movement, based on the equivalence of emptiness and movement. Thus, there is a New Cartesian Physic, in which space is completely tight because it is in constant motion. However, the absolute density of space is one feature. According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which I changed to the principle of definiteness of points of space to allocate an infinitely small point it must exert an infinitely large momentum, i.e., it can no be done. If we take the point a little more, the magnitude of the impulse will decrease and it can be set in motion. Thanks to this feature the space of possible electromagnetic waves.
You say: "As an example, If a large number of vortex matter particles were connected together to form a man and another group of particles were connected to form another man, if the two men had no direct contact with each other, they would be completely isolated from each other with no possible contact with each other because there would be no space between them to travel through to reach each other."
That's just included in the theme of my essay. The visible surface of the human body are not its border. Related space go beyond this visible surface of the human body and affects both other people and objects.
Paul, you well understand, you have a good essay, so you ask good questions.
All the best, Dizhechko Boris
My comment to Dizhechko:
Dear Dizhechko,
I am also an independent researcher. The general subject of my research is how the world began and how it works, so God does enter into my area of research along with many other areas. I can understand that most people tend to work in more narrow research areas. The advantage of doing so is that one can gain more in depth understanding about that one smaller area. The disadvantage is that one loses the view of the overall picture that can allow more overall understanding of the whole system. It takes both types to gain the full in depth understandings in all of the local areas of research and to then join all of them together to make a complete in depth understanding of the whole structure. I tend to see patterns in things around me that most others miss and can then follow those patterns to new understandings of the systems that generate them. That ability works best when working on the larger structural scale of things instead of a narrow area because the patterns are richer there and often flow through and connect many of the narrow areas when fully understood. I mainly tried to answer your comments about God. I try to help others who express thoughts or questions about an area that I have worked in and understanding God is the most important area in existence, but I don’t have to cover that area if you are not interested.
If space has a boundary(s), it cannot be infinite. This is the case whether it is a boundary that exists at the limit of its current expansion into the void or if it is just small bubbles of the void that exist somehow in or around matter particles, etc. To be completely infinite it would have to completely fill the void and the void would have to be infinite. If the universe is not truly infinite, it would not be likely that an infinite circle could be constructed except as a bounded infinity, which is different than an absolute infinity. If it is infinite, it would likely just extend out in all directions infinitely and have no geometric form or shape to it. This would mean that a motion could just continue on in a straight line without end and never need to have its motion curve. That is what motions do by themselves. They only curve as the result of interactions with something. The same thing applies to oscillatory motions. They need to have periodic interactions to change their direction of travel to generate the cycle. Most motions that man works with are not over long enough distances that any spatial curvature would exist. Especially the extremely small distances associated with the structure of matter particles. So far, all of man’s observations that I have seen indicate a flat non curved space even at very large scales.
If emptiness equals movement, what is the form or pattern of the movement of empty space compared to the vortex motion of matter that exists within its space? The angular motion of the vortex would generate a static mass effect in an interaction between it and any other vortex that was rotating in the same direction, but if the top end of one vortex interacted with the bottom end of another one they would both be traveling in the same direction at the same speed and would, therefore, not experience the same angular motion against angular motion mass effect that a side to side interaction would produce. If the interaction was between the side of one vortex with the side of the other vortex, but one vortex was rotated one hundred and eighty degrees from the other one, so that what was the bottom of it was now at its top, when their surfaces met they would both be traveling in the same direction and that would also produce a different mass effect during the interaction. In interaction observations these variations are not observed, however. This is what led me to conclude that a matter particle’s motion had to be in a three dimensional motion pattern in order to produce a three dimensional balanced static mass effect. If I look up into the sky and see a star that is four light years away, how much of that empty space is related to me and how much of it is related to the star?
Sorry it took so long for me to give a return comment, but I have now started on another project, so, much of my time is now applied to that. I will do my best to respond, however.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 14:58 GMT
Dear Butler, you were surprised by my assertion that space is the body of God. Here's my statement: "our eyes and the eyes of all living creatures God looks at Himself". The unity of the world in the unity of God, say the theologians. The unity of the world in the unity of matter – say the materialists. New Cartesian Physic claims that the unity of the world in the identity space, as the body of the Lord God that doeth wonders, and matter. That space is the body of the Lord God, people guess for a long time and therefore the question "Where is God?" they say, "God is in heaven."
Nature abhors a vacuum – so said the ancient philosophers. The wall closes instantly, if we will allow God, says Descartes, somewhere in an extraordinary way to form the void. Descartes did not know that the greatest speed is the speed of light and so today we say that in this case the walls of the voids are closed at the speed of light. Therefore, the void where space is moving at the speed of light.
The vortex is an unstable structure. Make it sustainable it is necessary that his side was locked. For example, the tornado lower end is locked in the surface of the Earth. The vortex will be stable if his side pinched, and he will be Thor. Boca vortex locked, if it is, as you say, becomes a three-dimensional movement due to its rotation.
You are not ready to accept the identity of space and matter, but I will give you the highest rating for you to remember about the existence of a New Cartesian Physic.
All the best!
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 00:17 GMT
Dear Dizhechko,
We see many things in somewhat similar ways. You see space as God’s body. After looking at the universe and seeing that it is made to be a temporary structure that contains entropy which will cause it to ultimately end, it does not make sense to me that God would not make it to exist without end if he intended it to be his body, so that he could live in it endlessly. It...
view entire post
Dear Dizhechko,
We see many things in somewhat similar ways. You see space as God’s body. After looking at the universe and seeing that it is made to be a temporary structure that contains entropy which will cause it to ultimately end, it does not make sense to me that God would not make it to exist without end if he intended it to be his body, so that he could live in it endlessly. It does make sense to me, however, that he could have made this universe as a place in which to make the parts of his body that he will save as the output of this world to be assembled and used by him to live in within a new better and permanent endless universe that he will make after this one is gone. When I looked in scriptures that are purported to be the words of God, I found that the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament actually tell us that this is the case and that he intends that we be the parts or members of his endless body. I could not accept those scriptures as true, however, until I compared what they say about the universe with actual observations of the universe to see if what they say agrees with the actual observed universe. I looked for information that I had come to understand that was beyond man’s current level of understanding and found that it not only contained that information, but also contained information about things that I had not yet come to understand, but some of which I now understand. This has convinced me that it is truly God’s communication to us, telling us about himself, the world that he made and his reason for creating us or our part in his creation. According to the scriptures, this world is not just composed of the world that we see, which has four parts to it, (one is not a time dimension). It also contains three heavens that are controlled by other living creatures called powers for the first heaven, principalities for the second heaven and angels for the third heaven. This is another image of God because he says the angels are ministering spirits, which is an image of God the Spirit, the principalities are the mediators between the angles and the powers or an image of the Word and the powers directly control things in the earth or body of the world. He also says that there is a part of the creation that is high above the highest heaven that is reserved for only God the Father and his Son (the Word of God) to dwell in. This makes a total of eight parts or dimensions in this creation, most of which we cannot observe. Jesus said that in the world to come we will be as the angels are. Since the angels are likely seven dimensional creatures this would mean that we would be seven dimensional creatures in the world to come. The descriptions given about the world to come suggest that it will be a twelve dimensional creation. We will live on the new earth, but it could receive three of those four extra dimensions that could then support us as seven dimensional beings. As you can see the whole spatial dimensional structure that exists in this world will be replaced by a new bigger, better, and permanent spatial dimensional structure where we will live as members or parts of God’s body without end. Of course, God existed before the creation of the universe, so he can and mostly does exist and live outside of the present universe. He does have the eighth part of the creation to use to observe and control all things in the universe as he desires, however. He also has a throne in the third heaven where he interacts with the angels and tells them what to do, etc. This universe including all of the matter and space that is in it is just a temporary manufacturing plant that God built and is using to build a permanent body for him to live in endlessly. When all of his body members have been made, he will not have any further need for this universe and it will be ended and replaced by the new universe as mentioned above.
The void is just the empty space that existed in God’s creation before God added motions to it to generate the forms or shapes of sub-energy, energy photon, and matter particles and the various combinations of them that he made when he made the world to make all of the things that it contains. It is not so much that nature abhors a vacuum as it is that it abhors a concentration. If you take a large container and divide it into two sections and make the best vacuum that you can in one side and place a large number of gas molecules in the other side and then remove the divider between the two sections, you will see that gas molecules will disperse themselves evenly everywhere in the container over a period of time. This does not happen because of anything that the vacuum does. It happens because molecules that travel toward the center of the concentration will likely interact with other molecules near the center and have their directions changed by the interactions, so that they travel away from the center of concentration. Molecules that travel away from the center of concentration will more likely be able to continue their travel in that direction because there are fewer molecules out there to interact with. Over time this results in an equal distribution of molecules throughout the container. It is the motions of the matter and not the vacuum or void that generates the result. I am not sure what you mean when you say “The wall closes instantly, if we will allow God, says Descartes, somewhere in an extraordinary way to form the void.” What wall and how does it close if God created the void? Of course, there is nothing that you or any of us can do to not allow God to create it. An energy photon travels at the speed of light, so according to your theory it would seem that it must be part of the void. It would seem that the void could not interact with anything since it is just emptiness. How then can an energy photon interact with other entities in many ways as has been observed by man?
You are right that a vortex is an unstable structure in that it requires continual input of motion to continue to exist. A tornado is actually weakened when its bottom is on the surface of the earth. When the earth’s surface is heated by sun light, it heats the air just above it. The heated air expands and becomes less dense than the cooler air above it. This causes it to be lighter than the air above it, so it rises and the cooler air flows down around it. This flow of hot air up and cool air down continues as long as the ground under it receives heat from the sun. Due to the rotation of the earth and other factors this motion can begin to rotate and eventually cause a tornado. Once the bottom end is on the ground it begins to weaken because some or all of the warm air that provides the upward flow of air becomes blocked by the surface of the earth. The complete surface is not usually always on the ground, so most of the time it can continue on or near the surface for some time before it weakens enough that it goes up from the surface of the earth. Once it is up it can regain its speed and power and go back down again if the ground temperature conditions still exist to continue to feed its motion. Like the calm winds at the center of a hurricane the winds at the center of a tornado can be very low in rotational speed. The angular speed at the outside of the vortex is the greatest as is generally true of any vortex or rotating structure. This is necessary because if the air molecules are locked into revolving around the center axis of the vortex by the other molecules around them, those at the outside of the vortex must travel a larger distance during a revolution than those that are very near the axis. To give an example by using the rotation of the earth, a point on the surface of the earth at the equator travels about one thousand miles an hour in its angular motion around the axis of the earth, while a point that is one inch from the center of the axis near the north axis pole will only travel a little over three inches in a day. Pushing in on the sides of a vortex would not keep it going. The pressure on the rotating sides of the vortex would act as a brake to slow its angular motion down and eventually stop it. Although a vortex is a three dimensional object, its rotation is basically two dimensional. If you pick any point on or in the vortex, it rotates around the axis in a two dimensional plain. If in addition to its normal rotation you also rotate it from top to bottom and from bottom to top, it would then be a form of a three dimensional rotation. The problem that you would then have is that the two rotations would be continually changing each other’s axis of rotation, which would tend to cause its angular motions to slow down due to the internal mass effects that would be generated against each rotation by the other rotation(s). In my theory, I use an inter-dimensional motion flow along with a servo of the speed of light to alter the direction of travel of an energy photon into an enclosed three dimensional path that generates the balanced angular motion mass effect and at the same time changes the energy photon into a matter particle, which is the cyclical curved enclosed path that the photon travels in. More details about that are given in my contest papers on this site. In my theory there is only one motion that is continually changing its direction of travel in a three dimensional motion pattern instead of the three dimensional rotation’s two or three motions, so there are no internal opposing mass effects generated. It is much simpler to make workable solutions when you are only working with basic motions that move and empty space for them to move in than when you have a space that is not empty, but must be composed of some substance that can be shaped into structures like a vortex shape and where some parts of space can exert pressure on other parts of space, etc. We both see that the static mass effect of matter particles is created by motion and that motions must have space to move in. The main difference between our theories is that I have come to understand that motions are existent entities in themselves and are the only entities that have the power built into them to act and because of that they are also the only entities that have the power to interact. Since all other entities can be constructed using them, motions and an empty space for them to move in is all that is needed to make the universe. You appear to believe that a motion is not an entity of itself, but needs a medium to travel in and is only a property of that medium, so you envision space as an entity in itself that is composed of some material medium that motions can travel in. One problem with this concept is that the question that is automatically raised is: What is that medium composed of? It can’t just be empty space, so what is it made of that gives it all of the properties that you give it? Another problem is how to get the three dimensional motion that is required to get a balanced static mass effect in matter particles. I have seen other similar theories and they all come short of being able to fully explain such things.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 01:48 GMT
Dear Paul N Butler,
Wonderful reply!
You did not make the reply in parts, so this time I also will make it a single lengthy reply, I hope it will be ok for you.
Your words……….
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...
view entire post
Dear Paul N Butler,
Wonderful reply!
You did not make the reply in parts, so this time I also will make it a single lengthy reply, I hope it will be ok for you.
Your words……….
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.
…………..Reply……………….
Good Study , and nice explanation, at present I did not go into this subject of fusion of other elements, I have to workout and discuss with you. We can probably can discuss in last week of this month March 2017.
…………… Your words……….
…………………….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.
…………..Reply……………….
I don’t deny that at present. But I think there is still a possibility.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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.
…………..Reply……………….
Yes Good information.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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.
…………..Reply……………….
No Blackholes, it will be large star probably
…………… Your words……….
…………………….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,
…………..Reply……………….
No black holes again please, no attraction of photons back…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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.
…………..Reply……………….
Lets observe and see. We have to first observe that there will be frequency shift and is happening. If it is not, there can be a fundamental mistake. But I don’t think. The frequency shift is happening. We have yet to observe it. Many predictions of Dynamic Universe model came true. Lets see this.
For me I never saw thro’ a telescope till now. I don’t have any access, I am not rich also to buy such equipment. Just a theoretician.
…………… Your words……….
When you say “Good thinking, there can be other ways.” What are those other ways?
…………..Reply……………….
We will discuss them after two weeks, please wait. I will contact you with a post before the contest ends.
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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.
…………..Reply……………….
Yes correct
…………… Your words……….
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.
…………..Reply……………….
Though I am a firm believer of God, I am not following the creation verse called “Shristi Suktam ” as in “Vedas”. It was said there that the universe was created from a thought “want” or “Ichcha” in a wink. Hindu philosophy does not say Universe is eternal.
……………
This I am posting here again for your immediate attention please...Sincerely,
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 18:56 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,
It sounds good to discuss these things in the last week of the month, except that in about a week I need to start to work on another project and that will likely take up much of my time, so it might take me some time to get back to you each time.
I believe that some gravitational frequency shifting has been observed, but it works both ways, so when a photon approaches a large star the frequency would shift up, but when it later began to go away from the star it would be shifted down again and I believe that the up shift would not be enough to produce all of those matter particles.
I will wait for your contact then.
Does Hindu philosophy give any information about what God’s purpose was for creating the universe and if that purpose includes man in any way?
Sincerely,
Paul
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 10:20 GMT
Hi Paul,
We will discuss later also after the contest....
Best
=snp
snp.gupta@gmail.com
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 06:51 GMT
Dear Paul,
I forgot where you put your equations, can you please send me again....
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 00:38 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,
I am not sure what you are asking for. Everything that I have sent to you is in both my and your paper’s pages. You should be able to find it there.
Sincerely,
Paul
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 23:31 GMT
Ok Thank you,
i was asking about the electrochemical reaction equations for formation of elements. But any way....
One part of the questions I already answered on the second day, for which I asked a little time.
I will try for the second set of questions (electrochemical reaction equations for formation of elements), which I am working out. I will send that for your perusal ASAP................
Kind regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 06:45 GMT
Dear Paul,
I am uploading a paper whose Abstract and title are given below.....
Nucleosynthesis after frequency shifting in electromagnetic radiation near gravitating masses in Dynamic Universe Model
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta (SNP Gupta)
Retired Assistant General Manager, Bhilai Steel Plant,
Res 1B / Street 57 / Sector 8 / Bhilai 490008
snp.gupta@gmail.com
Abstract: This paper is further to Dynamic Universe Model studies of the “light rays and other electromagnetic radiation” passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its frequency .This change in frequency will depend on relative direction of movement between mass and radiation. All these particles like “neutrinos, positrons, electrons, protons and neutrons” behave like waves also. We should remember the wave particle duality. Hence frequency enhancing is applicable here also. So in other words change in frequency can go further to converting radiation into matter like micro particles as stated above. Here in this paper we will discuss further into different element formations. And we will see some possible electrochemical reactions that are possible at high temperature and pressure for formation of these different elements.
Keywords: Dynamic Universe Model, Hubble Space telescope (HST), SITA simulations , singularity-free cosmology, Blue shifted Galaxies , Red shifted Galaxies, Grazing radiation frequency changes, Formation of Elements, Nucleosynthesis
attachments:
VDUMOC7_ref_FQXi_Nucleosynthesis.doc
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 07:10 GMT
Dear Paul
I prepared and Uploaded this paper 6 days before the contest closing , I request you to please have critical look at this paper and give your esteemed opinion on this paper.
I hope this will answer all the questions you rised....
Best Regards
=snp.gupta
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 17:07 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,
I looked at your paper and the biggest problems that I see are ones that I have already mentioned to you earlier in the comments.
1. The first problem is that experimental observations show that when a photon is emitted from a source that is located in a gravitational field and received by a receiver that is located at a place closer to the center of the field where...
view entire post
Dear Satyavarapu,
I looked at your paper and the biggest problems that I see are ones that I have already mentioned to you earlier in the comments.
1. The first problem is that experimental observations show that when a photon is emitted from a source that is located in a gravitational field and received by a receiver that is located at a place closer to the center of the field where the field is stronger, the receiver will register the photon as being blue shifted (its frequency will appear to be increased), which goes along ok with your theory of photons’ frequencies being blue shifted when approaching a large mass. The part that you are ignoring is that the opposite is also true. When a photon is emitted from a source that is located in a gravitational field and received by a receiver that is located in a place farther away from the center of the field where the field is weaker, the receiver will register the photon as being red shifted (its frequency will appear to be decreased), This means that as a photon would travel toward a large mass its frequency would be increased, but as it passed the large mass and began to travel away from it, its frequency would be decreased back down to where it originally was since observations show that the amount of frequency change experienced by the photon is the same in either direction, so that it would always be decreased by the same amount during the trip away from the large mass as it had been increased by its trip toward the large mass. This would mean that the idea that a photon’s frequency could be increased by passing a cascade of stars would not work because the increase that it would receive when it was approaching each star would be taken back by the gravitational field of the star as it moved away from it. When it reached the gravitational field of next star in the cascade it would, therefore, be back to its original frequency before it had approached the previous star in the cascade. There would be no net increase in its frequency no matter how big the cascade was. After it left the gravitational field of last star in the cascade it would be back to the original frequency that it had when it was originally emitted.
2. The second problem is that the middle range atoms that are produced in stars as byproducts of the fusion processes that take place in them cannot be broken down back into the hydrogen atoms that were used to form them. That process cannot be reversed by the stars or in any large enough quantity by any other process known to man without the input of more energy than was freed in their production. This is the case because they are in a state of greater entropy because they contain less total motion content than was contained in the separate hydrogen atoms that were used to produce them. To change them back into hydrogen atoms would, therefore, require the addition of all of the motion that had been removed from them and radiated away in the form of energy photons and would also require the addition of more motion to make up for the normal escape, dispersion, and, therefore, loss of use of some of the input motion as a part of the entropy process. This does not occur in nature and if it did it would ultimately run out of the extra motion needed to enable the continuation of the process. These elements would build up in the universe over time and would be taken into new stars when they are formed from the dust and gasses, etc. that contain them. This would result in new stars being larger and denser over time. The larger and denser stars consume much more energy than the smaller stars, thus using up their hydrogen and other fusion source materials much more quickly and, therefore, they burn out much sooner (in as little as 3 million years instead of the estimated 10 billion years for a star like the sun). They also tend to end in a supernova, which produces even heavier elements that would be taken up in the next generation of stars, thus continually increasing the effect until the mass would be too great to form functional stars.
There are two things that are built into the most basic structure of our current universe that cause things to work in this way and they cannot be overcome or changed without completely changing the structure of the universe and that is something that man will never be able to do. They are:
1. During an interaction that transfers motion amplitude (speed) from one entity to another one, the motion is generally transferred from the entity that possesses the greater motion content (speed) to the one that contains the lesser motion content. The result of this through many interactions over a long period of time is that the motions that contained larger amounts of motion give up some of their motion while those with only a small amount of motion receive motion from those that give it up. The end result is that the overall dynamic range of motions decreases with the motions of all entities slowly changing toward the middle of the range. This partly explains why the middle range atoms are the most stable, while the lightest atoms tend to give up their greater motion contents to form the middle range atoms. It is easy to see that trying to expand the range back to where it was before it was narrowed by normal entropy interactions will require the addition of all of the motion that has been transferred from the entities that originally contained the larger amount of motion back into them, but this transfer can only be accomplished through interactions with entities that still contain motion contents that are large enough to allow the transfer of the needed motion content back into the midrange atoms to allow them to be transferred back into the higher range hydrogen atoms. In addition to this, more motion must be applied because some of the applied motion will be dispersed and lost to productive use to convert the atoms back into hydrogen atoms. This brings us to the other thing that greatly contributes to entropy.
2. Motion entities that exist in higher density areas tend to disperse into locations of lower density. This is largely due to the fact that any entity that travels toward the center of density is likely to enter into an interaction that will change its direction of travel, but one that travels away from the center of density is less likely to interact with another entity, so it will likely be able to continue in its path away from the high density area. This is why the motions that are freed up in the fusion process are radiated away from the star and don’t just stay in it. Space is very large and if you dispersed all of the energy photons evenly throughout it, the energy density would be very low everywhere. Also, living creatures not only require energy, but require differences in energy to function and man requires these differences to power his machines, etc. We live by transferring motions (energy) from entities that possess greater motion amplitude (speed) to those with less motion amplitude and in the process we extract desirable work to function and to build the things that we build. No matter how much energy was available we could not survive if it was evenly distributed everywhere. That is why this part of entropy is so detrimental to man and all living creatures. As man transfers motion from entities that contain larger amounts of motions to those that have less motions in order to extract the desired work from those motions, he also contributes to entropy item number one above and because some of that motion always gets dissipated into space in the form of energy photons, etc. he also contributes to entropy item number two above also. The natural world works the same way. In order for it to do the work of reversing the fusion reactions of stars, all of the original motion content that was present in the hydrogen atoms would have to be added back in from some other higher energy source and in addition to that extra energy would need to be added from that source to allow for the amount that would go into the energy dispersion that would occur as part of the process. You have not given such a higher energy source in your theory. The gravity shifting that you mention in your theory would not work because of the equal down shifting that would occur when the photon traveled away from the gravity source and there is no other such source present in nature either. There are some other problems also, but I don’t want to cover too much at a time because you seem to not be able to follow that many. There are, of course, also some good things in your theory, but it is not worth going into them until the above mentioned road blocks are removed.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 23:12 GMT
Dear Paul,
I uploaded the full paper with Dynamic Universe Model Math to viXra. Now I got the web link address
http://viXra.org/abs/1703.0263
Hope you will have look and give your esteemed comments...
Best regards
=snp.
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 09:39 GMT
Dear Paul N Butler,
Thank you very much for studying my new paper and giving some fast comments. You are confusing a bit. They are no problems at all… I am repeating my first post here
…………… Your words……….
……………………. I looked at your paper and the biggest problems that I see are ones that I have already mentioned to you earlier in the...
view entire post
Dear Paul N Butler,
Thank you very much for studying my new paper and giving some fast comments. You are confusing a bit. They are no problems at all… I am repeating my first post here
…………… Your words……….
……………………. I looked at your paper and the biggest problems that I see are ones that I have already mentioned to you earlier in the comments.
1. The first problem is that experimental observations show that when a photon is emitted from a source that is located in a gravitational field and received by a receiver that is located at a place closer to the center of the field where the field is stronger, the receiver will register the photon as being blue shifted (its frequency will appear to be increased), which goes along ok with your theory of photons’ frequencies being blue shifted when approaching a large mass. The part that you are ignoring is that the opposite is also true. When a photon is emitted from a source that is located in a gravitational field and received by a receiver that is located in a place farther away from the center of the field where the field is weaker, the receiver will register the photon as being red shifted (its frequency will appear to be decreased), This means that as a photon would travel toward a large mass its frequency would be increased, but as it passed the large mass and began to travel away from it, its frequency would be decreased back down to where it originally was since observations show that the amount of frequency change experienced by the photon is the same in either direction, so that it would always be decreased by the same amount during the trip away from the large mass as it had been increased by its trip toward the large mass. This would mean that the idea that a photon’s frequency could be increased by passing a cascade of stars would not work because the increase that it would receive when it was approaching each star would be taken back by the gravitational field of the star as it moved away from it. When it reached the gravitational field of next star in the cascade it would, therefore, be back to its original frequency before it had approached the previous star in the cascade. There would be no net increase in its frequency no matter how big the cascade was. After it left the gravitational field of last star in the cascade it would be back to the original frequency that it had when it was originally emitted. …………..Reply……………….
I will give an example. There was an old story. Some Greek philosopher argued a Greek Olympic runner who won gold can never overtake a tortoise which started a bit early and is ahead of him. He says by the time he moves half distance the tortoise will move some more distance. And by the time he covers half of the remaining distance, the tortoise will move some more ahead. And this argument continues.
Here you are talking about the Gravitational redshift, this is a much smaller effect. What Dynamic Universe Model proposes happens on the light rays that goes GRAZINGLY near some gravitational mass. The equations of Gr Redshift are available in Wikipedia… You can see clearly they are dependent on distances only. General case for a photon of frequency ν 2 emitted at distance R 2 to observer distance R 1 (measured as distances from the gravitational center of mass) the equation
ν 1 = ν 2 SQRT ( R 1 ( R 2 − r s )/ R 2 ( R 1 − r s ) )
as long as R 1 , R 2 > rs holds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
For the Dynamic Universe Model case….
See in page 31 of the recent paper “Nucleosynthesis after frequency shifting in electromagnetic radiation near gravitating masses in Dynamic Universe Model with Math” Case3. When the velocity of gravitational mass is not exactly opposite or exactly in the same direction to the incoming light ray:
In this case the gravitational field will act as some brake or enhance the energy of the incoming light ray depending on (Cos ϕ) of the velocity of gravitational mass relative to incoming radiation, where (ϕ) is the angle between the light ray and velocity of gravitational mass .
The gravitating mass is moving with a velocity μ in the opposite direction and applies brake on the photon. This is something similar to the case where the gravitational mass is fixed in position and the photon of the rest mass E / c2 is moving with velocity μ Cos ϕ +c
Hence the initial velocity of photon = - μ Cos ϕ -c. It’s velocity is towards the gravitational mass. The photon is having a freefall. Its final velocity = - μ -c - got [ where t is the time of flight of photon].
Initial Energy = m (μ Cos ϕ +c)2 /2 = E (μ Cos ϕ +c)2 /2 c2 = E (μ2 Cos2 ϕ +c2+2μ Cos ϕ c )/2c2
Final Energy = ½ (E / c2 )(- μ Cos ϕ -c -got)2 = ½ (E / c2 )(μ2 Cos2 ϕ +c2+go2t2+2μ Cos ϕ got+2cgot+2μ Cos ϕ c )
Change in Energy = ½ (E / c2 ) (go2t2+2μ Cos ϕ got+2cgot ), here E = h ϑ that means
Change in Energy = ½ (h ϑ / c2 ) (go2t2+2μ Cos ϕ got+2cgot )
Hence change in Frequency = ϑ = 1/ {2 (h / c2 ) (go2t2+2μ Cos ϕ got+2cgot )}
If you want some numerical values for comparison sake you can do it…
It should be noted here….
a. The frequency change happens due to gravity of star mass, not due to relative direction of movement between grazing light ray and the star.
b. Star velocity is much much smaller compared to velocity of light. You can have a look at the equations
As the time is less I am making posts in different posts, Kindly note that I did not edit Subscripts and Superscripts. See the paper for original equations.
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 10:09 GMT
2
Dear Paul N Butler,
Thank you very much for studying my new paper and giving some fast comments. You are confusing a bit. They are no problems at all……………… Your words……….
……………………. 2. The second problem is that the middle range atoms that are produced in stars as by products of the fusion processes that take place in them cannot be broken...
view entire post
2
Dear Paul N Butler,
Thank you very much for studying my new paper and giving some fast comments. You are confusing a bit. They are no problems at all……………… Your words……….
……………………. 2. The second problem is that the middle range atoms that are produced in stars as by products of the fusion processes that take place in them cannot be broken down back into the hydrogen atoms that were used to form them. That process cannot be reversed by the stars or in any large enough quantity by any other process known to man without the input of more energy than was freed in their production. This is the case because they are in a state of greater entropy because they contain less total motion content than was contained in the separate hydrogen atoms that were used to produce them. To change them back into hydrogen atoms would, therefore, require the addition of all of the motion that had been removed from them and radiated away in the form of energy photons and would also require the addition of more motion to make up for the normal escape, dispersion, and, therefore, loss of use of some of the input motion as a part of the entropy process. This does not occur in nature and if it did it would ultimately run out of the extra motion needed to enable the continuation of the process. These elements would build up in the universe over time and would be taken into new stars when they are formed from the dust and gasses, etc. that contain them. This would result in new stars being larger and denser over time. The larger and denser stars consume much more energy than the smaller stars, thus using up their hydrogen and other fusion source materials much more quickly and, therefore, they burn out much sooner (in as little as 3 million years instead of the estimated 10 billion years for a star like the sun). They also tend to end in a supernova, which produces even heavier elements that would be taken up in the next generation of stars, thus continually increasing the effect until the mass would be too great to form functional stars. …………..Reply……………….
Why extra motion is required. Hydrogen is supplied from photon to proton frequency conversion process. It can be done by cascading of stars. See my first reply. The frequency conversion happens due to gravitation not by relative motion.
We don’t require nuclear fission of mid range elements to make the Hydrogen back for continuation. By super novae explosions additional elements are formed and it is required…
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 11:24 GMT
3
Dear Paul N Butler,
…………… Your words……….……………………. There are two things that are built into the most basic structure of our current universe that cause things to work in this way and they cannot be overcome or changed without completely changing the structure of the universe and that is something that man will never be able to do. They are: ....
view entire post
3
Dear Paul N Butler,
…………… Your words……….……………………. There are two things that are built into the most basic structure of our current universe that cause things to work in this way and they cannot be overcome or changed without completely changing the structure of the universe and that is something that man will never be able to do. They are: . …………..Reply……………….
The changing of structure of universe is impossible for man, before that he has to do the first step first… he should be able to understand the working of Universe first, if he can?
4
Dear Paul N Butler,
…………… Your words……….……………………. 1. During an interaction that transfers motion amplitude (speed) from one entity to another one, the motion is generally transferred from the entity that possesses the greater motion content (speed) to the one that contains the lesser motion content. The result of this through many interactions over a long period of time is that the motions that contained larger amounts of motion give up some of their motion while those with only a small amount of motion receive motion from those that give it up. The end result is that the overall dynamic range of motions decreases with the motions of all entities slowly changing toward the middle of the range. This partly explains why the middle range atoms are the most stable, while the lightest atoms tend to give up their greater motion contents to form the middle range atoms. …………..Reply……………….
This explains partly only, the middle range atoms are more stable because of their atomic structure also
5
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words………. ……………………. It is easy to see that trying to expand the range back to where it was before it was narrowed by normal entropy interactions will require the addition of all of the motion that has been transferred from the entities that originally contained the larger amount of motion back into them, but this transfer can only be accomplished through interactions with entities that still contain motion contents that are large enough to allow the transfer of the needed motion content back into the midrange atoms to allow them to be transferred back into the higher range hydrogen atoms. In addition to this, more motion must be applied because some of the applied motion will be dispersed and lost to productive use to convert the atoms back into hydrogen atoms. This brings us to the other thing that greatly contributes to entropy. …………..Reply……………….
Hydrogen heed not be prepared this way. Hydrogen Balance will be done in another process, the frequency changing process.
Best regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 13:57 GMT
6
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words………. ……………………. 2. Motion entities that exist in higher density areas tend to disperse into locations of lower density. This is largely due to the fact that any entity that travels toward the center of density is likely to enter into an interaction that will change its direction of travel, but one that travels away from the center of density is less likely to interact with another entity, so it will likely be able to continue in its path away from the high density area. …………..Reply……………….
Non uniform density of masses (energy)is one of the fundamental axioms of Dynamic Universe Model
7
…………… Your words……….……………………. This is why the motions that are freed up in the fusion process are radiated away from the star and don’t just stay in it. Space is very large and if you dispersed al of the energy photons evenly throughout it, the energy density would be very low everywhere. Also, living creatures not only require energy, but require differences in energy to function and man requires these differences to power his machines, etc. We live by transferring motions (energy) from entities that possess greater motion amplitude (speed) to those with less motion amplitude and in the process we extract desirable work to function and to build the things that we build. No matter how much energy was available we could not survive if it was evenly distributed everywhere. …………..Reply……………….
No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); Non uniform density of energy etc are some of the fundamental axioms of Dynamic Universe Model
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 14:23 GMT
8
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words………. …………………….That is why this part of entropy is so detrimental to man and all living creatures. As man transfers motion from entities that contain larger amounts of motions to those that have less motions in order to extract the desired work from those motions, he also contributes to entropy item number one above and because some of that motion always gets dissipated into space in the form of energy photons, etc. he also contributes to entropy item number two above also. …………..Reply……………….
Ok
9
…………… Your words………. …………………….The natural world works the same way. In order for it to do the work of reversing the fusion reactions of stars, all of the original motion content that was present in the hydrogen atoms would have to be added back in from some other higher energy source and in addition to that extra energy would need to be added from that source to allow for the amount that would go into the energy dispersion that would occur as part of the process. You have not given such a higher energy source in your theory. …………..Reply……………….
All the stars are my energy sources. No single energy source is possible.
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 14:52 GMT
10
Dear Paul
…………… Your words……….
…………………….The gravity shifting that you mention in your theory would not work because of the equal down shifting that would occur when the photon traveled away from the gravity source and there is no other such source present in nature either. …………..Reply……………….
Thank you very much for giving so elaborate study on my new paper. The frequency change happens due to gravity of star mass, not due to relative direction of movement between grazing light ray and the star. You are confusing a bit. They are no problems at all…
Here you are talking about the Gravitational redshift, this is a much smaller effect. What Dynamic Universe Model proposes happens on the light rays that goes GRAZINGLY near some gravitational mass. See my first reply for full details and equations.
11
…………… Your words………. …………………….There are some other problems also, but I don’t want to cover too much at a time because you seem to not be able to follow that many. There are, of course, also some good things in your theory, but it is not worth going into them until the above mentioned road blocks are removed. …………..Reply……………….
I repeat that the gravitational field will act as some brake on the energy of the incoming light ray. There will be a lot of difference between ‘speed of star’ and ‘speed of light.’
Please feel free to give any other problems also, we can discuss. I hope by now all the road blocks are removed.
Best Regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 19, 2017 @ 15:00 GMT
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
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 21, 2017 @ 02:50 GMT
Dear Paul,
Thank you for remembering my essay even after the contest virtually (voting) ends!
I am giving detailed replies to your post in my essay..
Best Regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 21, 2017 @ 11:44 GMT
1.
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your valuable time you are spending on this essay… I am making your observation into small posts and posting them as usual…..
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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...
view entire post
1.
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your valuable time you are spending on this essay… I am making your observation into small posts and posting them as usual…..
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
You are correct. Till now no such experiment was conducted by scientific community. It is only a proposal and if it is found true, then we can get all these benefits of unexplained parts of science.
For me to conduct this experiment, it is virtually impossible. I am a theoretical worker in this field and I am a retired steel plant employee with a laptop, without any income except my earlier savings.
Many earlier predictions of Dynamic Universe model came true. So of them were confirmed as late as after 9 or 10 years of the prediction. None of the experiments were conducted by me. I am hopeful this also will come true…..
2.
…………… Your words……….
…………………….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). …………..Reply……………….
Yes Gravitational redshift
I will continue in few more posts...
Best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 21, 2017 @ 11:50 GMT
Dear Paul,
3.
…………… Your words……….
…………………….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. …………..Reply……………….
Gravitational redshift
4.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
Present day Bigbang is based on this principle
5.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes you are correct, it is not possible today.
Remember Jules Verne the famous science fiction writer in his novel “From earth to moon” in 1865, uses a similar concept. In his spherical travelling ship he can shield gravitation field. There the travellers or astronauts can open a window to activate gravity in that direction and their ship will move in that direction ….
Similarly no gravity shields were found till today!
I will continue
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 21, 2017 @ 11:55 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 21, 2017 @ 12:49 GMT
Dear Paul,
9.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
I will search internet for such results. I will try to check in this direction also, and thank you for all this support. I will surely let you know if I find any old experiment giving such result.
10.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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.
…………..Reply……………….
What is the project you are working currently?
I will continue...
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 21, 2017 @ 23:07 GMT
Dear Paul,
11.
…………… Your words……….
…………………….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,...
view entire post
Dear Paul,
11.
…………… Your words……….
…………………….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, …………..Reply……………….
These particles will be created using the principles of energy conversation only. No extra energy will be created or destroyed
12.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. but the extra matter particles that were created from the energy photons would increase the total amount of matter in the universe. …………..Reply……………….
No No no… The energy – matter balance will continue. Nuclear Fission also comes into picture. Some matter will be converted back into lower atoms. Heavier atoms will breakdown and releases energy.
13.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
Not exactly like that, The burned out, quenched stars will become planets, dwarfs etc. One example is the Kuiper Belt.
(The Kuiper Belt is a comet-rich area of our solar system that begins near the orbit of Neptune and continues beyond Pluto. The belt's inner edge is about 30 astronomical units (AU) away from the Sun. Its outer edge is about 50 AU away from the Sun)
This belt is rich of midrange and higher range elements. Those comets etc will evaporate and form dust. Some of this dust will go into stars, fall on planets, or may form cosmic ray showers.
14.
.…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
Nuclear Fission also happens in the stars and midrange atoms will breakdown into small atoms. Fission happens at lower temperatures than Fusion.
Thank you for your waiting....
I will continue...
Best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 22, 2017 @ 00:06 GMT
Dear Paul,
15.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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...
view entire post
Dear Paul,
15.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
In addition to super novae the normal sized stars like sun will cool down and quench slowly. This type of star population is more than large stars.
According to Bigbang all these stars were formed at the beginning, but according to Dynamic Universe Model all the stars, galaxies will take birth and quench according to their life cycle and mass.
16.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
Why new stars, they can be taken by old stars as well. According to UGF acting on them, these particles move into some star or planet that shows more attraction force on the particle. Depending on the mass collected the star will act accordingly…
For some stars it is not possible have any further fusion. So it may explode.
17.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
Why black holes are needed? What advantage will you get with that concept?
Yes, some Novae and Super novae will be formed. Other particles go many places…
I will continue....
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 22, 2017 @ 08:56 GMT
Dear Paul,
18.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
I don’t know why you are thinking this that this process will speed up….? Some galaxies will not have enough gas to form new stars, they will quench. Are you talking about this?
19.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
Nuclear fission reactions are the basis for all the appropriate brake of midrange and heavy atoms at appropriate temperatures and pressures. Most of these reactions are reversible, that way they maintain balances in the universe.
Probably Bigbang predicts a universe full of quenched stars and Galaxies, which I don’t know, but not in the Dynamic Universe model.
20.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
I did not understand your point…”…. continual fusion of the newly created protons, etc. to produce more protons for fusion ….”
I will continue
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 22, 2017 @ 09:00 GMT
Dear Paul,
This is the FINAL part...
21.
…………… Your words……….
…………………….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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes, you are correct!
22.
…………… Your...
view entire post
Dear Paul,
This is the FINAL part...
21.
…………… Your words……….
…………………….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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes, you are correct!
22.
…………… Your words……….
…………………….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. …………..Reply……………….
I already explained about reversible fission reactions which will maintain energy and matter balances in the universe. This is not applicable.
23.
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………..Reply……………….
Probably you might have understood by my above explanations… If not we will discuss further…..
Thank you for your nice thinking and analysis of my paper.
Thank you once again for remembering my paper and expressing your doubts….
Best regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 29, 2017 @ 02:44 GMT
Dear Satyavarapu,
I hope you realize by now that I am not interested in the politics or the prizes in the essay contests. I am interested in transferring new information to man that is required in order to allow man to progress to the next level of understanding to keep advancements in line with the goals and intents that must be accomplished at their appointed times. Those goals and...
view entire post
Dear Satyavarapu,
I hope you realize by now that I am not interested in the politics or the prizes in the essay contests. I am interested in transferring new information to man that is required in order to allow man to progress to the next level of understanding to keep advancements in line with the goals and intents that must be accomplished at their appointed times. Those goals and intents will be accomplished, of course, but, my desire is that man can participate in their achievement in as closely as possible to an equal participation level with all involved. There are, however, other lower levels of participation available to man if he proves to be inadequate for equal participation, but these would not likely be considered to be good results by man. This would result in great suffering for man, Even though I have tried to stay within the context of man’s current level of understanding, as much as possible, man has not yet shown the ability to observe, input, understand, and assimilate the new information into his current understanding. I have seen some beginning conceptual understandings, but they all consider space to be more than it is and the motions that exist in that space to be less than they are and to act or behave in ways not in accordance with their actual observed behavior. Most don’t even want to try to understand the true nature of forces, energy photons, and matter particles. They are content to just understand what interaction outcomes can occur and the probability of occurrence of each outcome (to only know their outputs) and don’t have any desire to truly understand the underlying structure and the interaction path flows of that structure that generate those outcomes and their probabilities. Of course, many might investigate structural concepts in more detail, except they have been scientifically neutered by acceptance of uncertainty principles or other concepts that take away the possibility in their minds of their willingness to proceed in that direction. From what I have seen in this contest though, it is a belief, whether it is in God or a god or no God and the belief of what would, therefore, be required in the structure and operation of the universe to support that belief that determines what many are willing to believe scientifically. This blinds most from seeing any concepts except those few that could support their belief.
I have found that the only way to get the true understanding of the structure, operation, and purpose of the universe is to first put all of those things aside and just observe the universe to begin to gain an understanding of it. The next step is to interact with it to get a better understanding of it than could be obtained by observation only. The third step is to search out for other(s) who can give more understanding because their position or ability is different in such a way(s) as to allow the knowledge of things that you could not access from your limited position. Once all of the understandings that have been gained by these processes have been fully explored, it is then time to see what beliefs would be supported by the way that the universe is constructed and operates, etc. In this way the mind can remain open to all new possible concepts until all of the information leads to the only possible true belief(s).
What other ways do you believe would allow you to sense the great gravitational blue shift that your theory predicts?
I am currently constructing a structure in outer space.
In all interactions so far observed by man, the total amount of energy (motion) is conserved. This means that energy is neither created nor destroyed in interactions. Gravity fields work in similar ways. As an example, when an entity approaches a large mass, the gravity field of that mass adds energy to the entity by increasing its rate of motion (motion amplitude). If the entity does not actually strike the large mass, but just passes closely by it and then travels away from it again, once it passes the point of minimum distance from the center of gravity of the large mass and begins to travel away from its center of gravity, the gravity field begins to remove the energy that had been added during its approach to the large mass. By the time the entity effectively exits the gravity field, it has lost all of the energy it had gained during its path into the gravity field, so that it is restored to the velocity that it had before it entered the gravity field. The effect that you call gravitational red shift, which actually produces both red and blues shifts that are equal depending on the direction of travel in the gravity field, also works in this way. Travel toward the center of gravity from point A to point B produces a blue shift while travel away from the center of gravity from point B to point A produces an equal amplitude red shift. In the energy conversion process that you mention, after the original photons have their frequencies up shifted they would contain more energy than they originally contained before the upshifting. If this process works according to the principles of energy conservation as you mention, so that the total amount of energy in the universe remains the same, where does that extra energy come from? If it is not transferred into them by the input of energy from some external source that then contains less energy as a result of the transfer, the new energy that is added to the photons to upshift them would be newly created energy that would increase the total amount of energy in the universe. I believe this is contrary to your theory. When that new energy is changed into matter particles, those new matter particles would increase the amount of matter in the universe. Since the energy photons were changed into matter particles, the energy photons that had been converted would no longer exist and, therefore, the energy level would be restored to the level that existed before the fusion process began. This would mean that the energy recycling part of your theory could work if the great blue shift that you propose actually exists. The problem is that the new matter particles that are produced are not recycled. They are fused in the stars, which not only would produce new energy photons for the next cycle of upshifting, but would also produce more midrange atoms that cannot be fused in stars. This extra matter would continually be added to the universe and ultimately cause everything to break down as I have already explained.
Nuclear fission would break down some atoms, but only a small proportion of them. Most fission takes place in the heaviest atoms, which are broken down into lighter stable atoms that are still very heavy such as lead, which will not fission any further. There are also unstable isotopes of some lighter element atoms that would fission, but for the most part the final output atoms generated by the fission process would be stable and still above the size range of the atoms that stars can use as fusion fuel. Like in fusion, fission does not generally actually change matter particles into energy photons. The energy photons produced come mainly from freed binding energy, etc. Since your upshifting would produce all of the new protons needed to replenish the fuel to be fused in the stars, if you were in some way able to break all of the heavier atoms down into lighter atoms that could also be used as fusion fuel in the stars that fusion material would then build up in the universe cause a runaway increase in the formation of new stars and galaxies that would ultimately fill up all of space. This is because you would not be addressing the basic problem of the continual increase of energy in the universe due to the photon upshifting. Transferring that increase in energy into an increase of matter particles does not solve the problem that the increase in energy would ultimately fill the universe whether it is in the form of energy photons or matter particles.
On the other hand, if the new atoms were not broken down into fusible atoms, as the new matter built up in the universe, more and more of it would be drawn into stars making them denser, so that they would consume their fusible materials faster and more of them would end in super nova explosions, thus creating more of the heavier atoms. You are right that it would not only be new stars that would be affected, but existing stars would also pull some of that extra matter into themselves and also become denser with the same results.
As you say some of that matter would be in the form of larger objects like planets, meteors, and comets, etc., but even some of those would be drawn into stars as the universe became more crowded with such matter objects. No matter how the matter was dispersed in space the continual buildup of matter would ultimately result in large amounts of that matter being drawn into stars and adding to their density, which would make the stars burn out quicker, but would not add any usable fusion material to the stars.
The less dense stars like the sun generally currently outnumber the denser stars that end in a supernova, but as the matter density of the universe increased over time due to the extra midrange atoms generated by the photon upshifting, that would change. Stars would take in some of that extra matter and become denser until most stars were in that denser size range and end in supernovas. Since the denser stars have much shorter lifetimes, this would lead to an increased cycling rate for the photon upshifting, thus generating more new midrange atoms much quicker and at the same time it would also generate large amounts of heavier atoms also in a shorter time due to the greater number of supernovas.
The big bang theory does not say that all stars were created at the same time. It just says that most of the hydrogen atoms in the universe were created in a relatively short time. The stars formed over time due to instabilities in the density of the hydrogen atoms in various places at various different times that led to the formation of denser hydrogen concentrations that created increased gravity in those places, which attracted more hydrogen into those areas to form gas clouds that ultimately contracted into stars. This process still continues as new instabilities form and will continue until the density of hydrogen in the universe gets too low to allow it to continue. If your great blue shift does not exist, that hydrogen will be consumed by stars long before the buildup of midrange atoms would cause much of a problem. The stars would then all go out and the buildup of midrange atoms would then stop.
Most of man’s current concepts about black holes would allow them to slowly dissipate over time by emission of gamma rays, etc. This could conceivably change the matter particles that they take in into energy photons.
The process would speed up because as the amount of midrange atoms built up over time, more and more of that matter would be taken into stars, the stars would become denser and have shorter lives because they would consume more fusible material in shorter times. The hotter more dense stars would generate more photons to upshift per unit of time, thus increasing the rate of production of new matter particles to fuse in the larger stars. The denser stars would produce larger numbers of the midrange atoms per unit of time because the denser stars must fuse more fusible materials per unit of time to generate the greater temperatures necessary to keep the denser stars from collapsing due to their greater gravity field. The increase in the rate of production of the midrange atoms would increase the rate of addition of those atoms into stars to make them still more dense and these increases would continue until all existing stars collapsed due to their density becoming so great that no fusion process could generate enough heat to resist the pull of their strong gravity fields. Any new stars that started to form would pull in so much of this matter so quickly that they would also collapse before much of their fusible matter could be fused.
It would be likely that some galaxies would die out before others, but as each galaxy died out it would leave a large area of space that contained too high a density of non-fusible matter to allow a new galaxy to form in it. New galaxies could still form in other areas, but in the long run all of space would be filled up with too much non-fusible matter for any new galaxies to form.
Summary of main problem:
The main thing that you would need to explain is where the extra energy that is added to the energy photons during their upshifting comes from. In order for the upshifting to work and not add to the energy content of the universe, energy must be transferred from some entity that contains more energy than the up shifted photons will contain once the upshifting is completed and that transfer must result in an equal decrease in the energy content of the entity that transferred energy into the photons to upshift them. In order for the upshifting process to continue indefinitely, the entity that transferred some of its energy to the photons to upshift them would need to in some way have the energy that it gave up in the upshifting process to be replenished in some way that would create a complete cyclical energy flow cycle. Due to entropy, I believe that such a complete cyclical energy flow cycle without any losses would not be possible.
Sincerely,
Paul
view post as summary
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 30, 2017 @ 01:48 GMT
1
Dear Paul,
Thank you for the wonderfully analyzing reply on my essay once again, even after the contest voting closing!
This time also I will post my replies part by part as and when I finish my reply to that part of nice scientific analysis. I am posting outside the thread so that the visibility will be better.
Thank you for the interest on my essay and Dynamic Universe Model once again.
Best Regards
=snp
2
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. I hope you realize by now that I am not interested in the politics or the prizes in the essay contests. …………..Reply……………….
Probably you also might have realized by now, I am also something like you only. I also work for truth and experimental results. I did not bother about money, awards and prizes. Some Indian Mainstream professors offered money to me to stop writing against Mainstream physics and come into their line. I am not a rich man, I need money, but I did not change. That why NO university offered a PhD student ship even All main stream publishers just bluntly refused, some were saying that I should try sending my papers to another journal.
There are very few people like FQXi who encourage logic, experimental results and observational physics.
There are still fewer people like you who are really knowledgeable in present day physics, know all the POLITICS in here, and had the power but work for banishing myth, dogma and superstitions of present day physics. But they encourage people like me!
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 1, 2017 @ 00:28 GMT
3
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….I am interested in transferring new information to man that is required in order to allow man to progress to the next level of understanding to keep advancements in line with the goals and intents that must be accomplished at their appointed times. Those goals and intents will be accomplished, of course, but, my desire is that man can participate in their achievement in as closely as possible to an equal participation level with all involved. …………..Reply……………….
Very Nice objective and you are doing good hard work to achieve it
4
…………… Your words……….
……………………. There are, however, other lower levels of participation available to man if he proves to be inadequate for equal participation, but these would not likely be considered to be good results by man. This would result in great suffering for man, Even though I have tried to stay within the context of man’s current level of understanding, as much as possible, man has not yet shown the ability to observe, input, understand, and assimilate the new information into his current understanding. …………..Reply……………….
You are correct
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 1, 2017 @ 00:37 GMT
5
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. I have seen some beginning conceptual understandings, but they all consider space to be more than it is and the motions that exist in that space to be less than they are and to act or behave in ways not in accordance with their actual observed behavior. …………..Reply……………….
You are correct. There are many theories professing this concept. I think the observation of bending of light lead to these theories. But mixing up of bending with space created this problem.
6
…………… Your words……….
…………………….Most don’t even want to try to understand the true nature of forces, energy photons, and matter particles. They are content to just understand what interaction outcomes can occur and the probability of occurrence of each outcome (to only know their outputs) and don’t have any desire to truly understand the underlying structure and the interaction path flows of that structure that generate those outcomes and their probabilities. Of course, many might investigate structural concepts in more detail, except they have been scientifically neutered by acceptance of uncertainty principles or other concepts that take away the possibility in their minds of their willingness to proceed in that direction. From what I have seen in this contest though, it is a belief, whether it is in God or a god or no God and the belief of what would, therefore, be required in the structure and operation of the universe to support that belief that determines what many are willing to believe scientifically. This blinds most from seeing any concepts except those few that could support their belief. …………..Reply……………….
You are correct. Concept of God sprung in……. !
Probably it is required?
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 1, 2017 @ 00:51 GMT
7
…………… Your words……….
…………………….I have found that the only way to get the true understanding of the structure, operation, and purpose of the universe is to first put all of those things aside and just observe the universe to begin to gain an understanding of it. The next step is to interact with it to get a better understanding of it than could be obtained by observation only. The third step is to search out for other(s) who can give more understanding because their position or ability is different in such a way(s) as to allow the knowledge of things that you could not access from your limited position. Once all of the understandings that have been gained by these processes have been fully explored, it is then time to see what beliefs would be supported by the way that the universe is constructed and operates, etc. In this way the mind can remain open to all new possible concepts until all of the information leads to the only possible true belief(s). …………..Reply……………….
You are correct again. I am just doing this only, for the understanding of Universe….
8
…………… Your words……….
…………………….What other ways do you believe would allow you to sense the great gravitational blue shift that your theory predicts? …………..Reply……………….
Nothing great in it, this Gravitational blueshift came as a possible logical development for the understanding of Universe….
What do you mean by …. “What other ways….” I did not get you….
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 1, 2017 @ 05:38 GMT
9
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. I am currently constructing a structure in outer space.
In all interactions so far observed by man, the total amount of energy (motion) is conserved. This means that energy is neither created nor destroyed in interactions. Gravity fields work in similar ways. As an example, when an entity approaches a large mass, the gravity field of that mass adds energy to the entity by increasing its rate of motion (motion amplitude). If the entity does not actually strike the large mass, but just passes closely by it and then travels away from it again, once it passes the point of minimum distance from the center of gravity of the large mass and begins to travel away from its center of gravity, the gravity field begins to remove the energy that had been added during its approach to the large mass. …………..Reply……………….
You discussed this concept a month back
10
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
By the time the entity effectively exits the gravity field, it has lost all of the energy it had gained during its path into the gravity field, so that it is restored to the velocity that it had before it entered the gravity field. The effect that you call gravitational red shift, which actually produces both red and blues shifts that are equal depending on the direction of travel in the gravity field, also works in this way. …………..Reply……………….
In Dynamic Universe Model this will be mostly blue shifted. But until some experimental results are not seen, it will be difficult to say…
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 1, 2017 @ 06:33 GMT
11
Hi Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. Travel toward the center of gravity from point A to point B produces a blue shift while travel away from the center of gravity from point B to point A produces an equal amplitude red shift. In the energy conversion process that you mention, after the original photons have their frequencies up shifted they would contain more energy than they originally contained before the upshifting. If this process works according to the principles of energy conservation as you mention, so that the total amount of energy in the universe remains the same, where does that extra energy come from? …………..Reply……………….
You discussed this concept a month back , my reply is sae again.
Basically, the total energy and energy to matter ratio in the Universe will remain same. In the stars matter will be converted into energy and energy will be converted back into matter in the gravitational frequency shifting near the star. That way both the balances will be achieved.
12
…………… Your words……….
……………………. If it is not transferred into them by the input of energy from some external source that then contains less energy as a result of the transfer, the new energy that is added to the photons to upshift them would be newly created energy that would increase the total amount of energy in the universe. I believe this is contrary to your theory. …………..Reply……………….
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.
Hence that will not contradict the “FOUNDATIONS” of Dynamic Universe Model.
Sincerely
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 1, 2017 @ 07:26 GMT
13
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. When that new energy is changed into matter particles, those new matter particles would increase the amount of matter in the universe. Since the energy photons were changed into matter particles, the energy photons that had been converted would no longer exist and, therefore, the energy level would be...
view entire post
13
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. When that new energy is changed into matter particles, those new matter particles would increase the amount of matter in the universe. Since the energy photons were changed into matter particles, the energy photons that had been converted would no longer exist and, therefore, the energy level would be restored to the level that existed before the fusion process began. This would mean that the energy recycling part of your theory could work if the great blue shift that you propose actually exists. The problem is that the new matter particles that are produced are not recycled. They are fused in the stars, which not only would produce new energy photons for the next cycle of upshifting, but would also produce more midrange atoms that cannot be fused in stars. This extra matter would continually be added to the universe and ultimately cause everything to break down as I have already explained. …………..Reply……………….
This extra matter and extra energy will be compensated by matter to energy conversion in stars and energy to matter conversion near stars. Regarding metal richness, energy balance and matter to energy ratio are to be worked out theoretically and experimentation to be done.
They all require time and money. Somebody else have to do this. As done for my earlier predictions, wait for 10 years to get some result.
I don’t have any money to do some experimentation. I am retied from steel plant living on my savings. The prices rise here in India. Govt reduces interest rates on the savings of retired persons are some of the problems…
Hence lets wait and see….
14
…………… Your words……….
……………………. Nuclear fission would break down some atoms, but only a small proportion of them. Most fission takes place in the heaviest atoms, which are broken down into lighter stable atoms that are still very heavy such as lead, which will not fission any further. …………..Reply……………….
It may be your feeling. But only experiment can tell. Dynamic Universe Model predicts so
I don’t have any money to do some experimentation. I am retied from steel plant living on my savings. The prices rise here in India. Govt reduces interest rates on the savings of retired persons are some of the problems…
I am thinking of doing CULTIVATION / agricultural farming of some 2 or 3 acres of agriculture land for myself and wife’s living. I already talked with some land lord for taking land on rent. I have to sign an agreement in a week or so and start doing.
Hence lets wait and see….
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 1, 2017 @ 07:33 GMT
15
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. There are also unstable isotopes of some lighter element atoms that would fission, but for the most part the final output atoms generated by the fission process would be stable and still above the size range of the atoms that stars can use as fusion fuel. Like in fusion, fission does not generally actually change matter particles into energy photons. The energy photons produced come mainly from freed binding energy, etc. …………..Reply……………….
Dynamic Universe model also does not say so… Higher atoms will not be produced just by frequency shifting……
16
…………… Your words……….
……………………. Since your upshifting would produce all of the new protons needed to replenish the fuel to be fused in the stars, if you were in some way able to break all of the heavier atoms down into lighter atoms that could also be used as fusion fuel in the stars that fusion material would then build up in the universe cause a runaway increase in the formation of new stars and galaxies that would ultimately fill up all of space. …………..Reply……………….
I am very CONFIDENT; the whole thing can be worked out well; but this working out will take some time. It may take some years to work-out this and show. I can spend an hour or two maximum per day. Best Regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 1, 2017 @ 09:10 GMT
17
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. This is because you would not be addressing the basic problem of the continual increase of energy in the universe due to the photon upshifting. Transferring that increase in energy into an increase of matter particles does not solve the problem that the increase in energy would ultimately fill the universe whether it is in the form of energy photons or matter particles. …………..Reply……………….
You are contradicting, Challenge it, put some betting money on it, frame your question properly and fully. Provide some infrastructure to me for experimentation for final proofs…
Will that be ok for you? Can you do that?
I will work-out and show simulations for positive affirmation from Dynamic Universe Model.
Best Regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 1, 2017 @ 10:09 GMT
18
…………… Your words……….
……………………. On the other hand, if the new atoms were not broken down into fusible atoms, as the new matter built up in the universe, more and more of it would be drawn into stars making them denser, so that they would consume their fusible materials faster and more of them would end in super nova explosions, thus creating more of the heavier atoms. You are right that it would not only be new stars that would be affected, but existing stars would also pull some of that extra matter into themselves and also become denser with the same results. …………..Reply……………….
No, no no Paul, not correct. You discussed this concept a month back
19
…………… Your words……….
…………………….As you say some of that matter would be in the form of larger objects like planets, meteors, and comets, etc., but even some of those would be drawn into stars as the universe became more crowded with such matter objects. No matter how the matter was dispersed in space the continual buildup of matter would ultimately result in large amounts of that matter being drawn into stars and adding to their density, which would make the stars burn out quicker, but would not add any usable fusion material to the stars. …………..Reply……………….
You are not accepting, Do some betting.
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 1, 2017 @ 10:12 GMT
20
…………… Your words……….
…………………….The less dense stars like the sun generally currently outnumber the denser stars that end in a supernova, but as the matter density of the universe increased over time due to the extra midrange atoms generated by the photon upshifting, that would change. Stars would take in some of that extra matter and become denser until most stars were in that denser size range and end in supernovas. Since the denser stars have much shorter lifetimes, this would lead to an increased cycling rate for the photon upshifting, thus generating more new midrange atoms much quicker and at the same time it would also generate large amounts of heavier atoms also in a shorter time due to the greater number of supernovas. …………..Reply……………….
No no no not that way…. No extra Super novae.
21
…………… Your words……….
…………………….The big bang theory does not say that all stars were created at the same time. It just says that most of the hydrogen atoms in the universe were created in a relatively short time. The stars formed over time due to instabilities in the density of the hydrogen atoms in various places at various different times that led to the formation of denser hydrogen concentrations that created increased gravity in those places, which attracted more hydrogen into those areas to form gas clouds that ultimately contracted into stars. This process still continues as new instabilities form and will continue until the density of hydrogen in the universe gets too low to allow it to continue. …………..Reply……………….
OK, thanks for correction, Dynamic Universe Model proposes almost same. They are formed in the star forming regions of AGNs.
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 1, 2017 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear Paul
22
…………… Your words……….
……………………. If your great blue shift does not exist, that hydrogen will be consumed by stars long before the buildup of midrange atoms would cause much of a problem. The stars would then all go out and the buildup of midrange atoms would then stop. …………..Reply……………….
Yes you are...
view entire post
Dear Paul
22
…………… Your words……….
……………………. If your great blue shift does not exist, that hydrogen will be consumed by stars long before the buildup of midrange atoms would cause much of a problem. The stars would then all go out and the buildup of midrange atoms would then stop. …………..Reply……………….
Yes you are correct. The Universe may die out. But Dynamic Universe Model proposes that the universe will be continuing to exist.
23
…………… Your words……….
…………………….Most of man’s current concepts about black holes would allow them to slowly dissipate over time by emission of gamma rays, etc. This could conceivably change the matter particles that they take in into energy photons. …………..Reply……………….
Blackhole concept is not required. Gamma rays etc are from frequency shifting
24
…………… Your words……….
…………………….The process would speed up because as the amount of midrange atoms built up over time, more and more of that matter would be taken into stars, the stars would become denser and have shorter lives because they would consume more fusible material in shorter times. The hotter more dense stars would generate more photons to upshift per unit of time, thus increasing the rate of production of new matter particles to fuse in the larger stars. The denser stars would produce larger numbers of the midrange atoms per unit of time because the denser stars must fuse more fusible materials per unit of time to generate the greater temperatures necessary to keep the denser stars from collapsing due to their greater gravity field. The increase in the rate of production of the midrange atoms would increase the rate of addition of those atoms into stars to make them still more dense and these increases would continue until all existing stars collapsed due to their density becoming so great that no fusion process could generate enough heat to resist the pull of their strong gravity fields. Any new stars that started to form would pull in so much of this matter so quickly that they would also collapse before much of their fusible matter could be fused. …………..Reply……………….
No no no not that way, you are confusing….
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 1, 2017 @ 10:19 GMT
25
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. It would be likely that some galaxies would die out before others, but as each galaxy died out it would leave a large area of space that contained too high a density of non-fusible matter to allow a new galaxy to form in it. New galaxies could still form in other areas, but in the long run all of...
view entire post
25
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. It would be likely that some galaxies would die out before others, but as each galaxy died out it would leave a large area of space that contained too high a density of non-fusible matter to allow a new galaxy to form in it. New galaxies could still form in other areas, but in the long run all of space would be filled up with too much non-fusible matter for any new galaxies to form.
…………..Reply……………….
Not necessarily. New Galaxies will be taking birth. See my essay
26
…………… Your words……….
…………………….Summary of main problem:
The main thing that you would need to explain is where the extra energy that is added to the energy photons during their upshifting comes from. In order for the upshifting to work and not add to the energy content of the universe, energy must be transferred from some entity that contains more energy than the up shifted photons will contain once the upshifting is completed and that transfer must result in an equal decrease in the energy content of the entity that transferred energy into the photons to upshift them. In order for the upshifting process to continue indefinitely, the entity that transferred some of its energy to the photons to upshift them would need to in some way have the energy that it gave up in the upshifting process to be replenished in some way that would create a complete cyclical energy flow cycle. Due to entropy, I believe that such a complete cyclical energy flow cycle without any losses would not be possible.
…………..Reply……………….
The stars will give energy. Depending on the energy requirement of particular ray the frequency shifting will take place
I hope I cleared all your esteemed questions and doubts. If you have any more doubts we can discuss anytime
Thank you for asking me so many well knowledged and esteemed questions
Thank you for your valuable time….
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on May. 21, 2017 @ 02:39 GMT
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
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 6, 2017 @ 08:06 GMT
Dear Paul,
You have not replied any to my answers….
I wrote those words in that way because of three or four reasons….
1. Your question was not directly related to our topic of discussion
“Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe”. My task here is for solving one of the unsolved problems using Dynamic Universe Model and this topic is related to Dynamic Universe model in that way.
Your question is also another one of many unsolved problems of Dynamic Universe Model and it is related to Dynamic Universe Model in that way only. What I can say here is Bigbang based cosmologies solve one problem compared to twenty one problems (Including the one solved by Bigbang Cosmologies) solved by Dynamic Universe Model. Of course there are many more problems to be solved by Dynamic Universe model.
2. Tomorrow (Sunday) I will have to finalize my contract for about the 2 Acre of cultivation land rental agreement and then I will have to start working for food. I spent most of the savings money earned before retirement. Hence what I thought was…. if you finalize I may earn some money in the meanwhile for my living.
3. The project nucleosynthesis and synthesis process of the elements you indicated will tale quite a long time to get the results fully.
4. Already I answered this question in this thread and you asked a similar question again with some more detail. That means you require detailed proofs and evidences.
I will work-out your question also. No problem…..
Best Regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 6, 2017 @ 08:13 GMT
Correction for point 3 please ... read it as
3. The project nucleosynthesis and synthesis process of the elements you indicated will
take quite a long time to get the results fully.
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Jun. 3, 2017 @ 21:12 GMT
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
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 5, 2017 @ 23:21 GMT
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
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 6, 2017 @ 02:41 GMT
Dear Paul,
Remaining answers to your nice post are contnued in the main line and are not in this thread please...
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 9, 2017 @ 13:01 GMT
1
Dear Paul,
I am also a person who works for the sake of knowledge and not for money. It was just my pain I asked for betting. I accept even those challenges without any financial benefits. For the work on Dynamic Universe Model, I accept all the challenges, without any problem. I didn’t work for money in Physics all my life.
I just wanted to see if you will hold...
view entire post
1
Dear Paul,
I am also a person who works for the sake of knowledge and not for money. It was just my pain I asked for betting. I accept even those challenges without any financial benefits. For the work on Dynamic Universe Model, I accept all the challenges, without any problem. I didn’t work for money in Physics all my life.
I just wanted to see if you will hold your idea firm when someone challenges you. If you don’t, don’t worry. Forget all the bets and the things I talked. You also might have realized by now that I am not interested in the politics or the prizes in the essay contests. I want only a scientific experimental result based facts.
I am just giving reply for your question what hat I know till now, Don’t worry about any challenges …….. Your idea in your own words .... “when an entity approaches a large mass, the gravity field of that mass adds energy to the entity by increasing its rate of motion (motion amplitude). If the entity does not actually strike the large mass, but just passes closely by it and then travels away from it again, once it passes the point of minimum distance from the center of gravity of the large mass and begins to travel away from its center of gravity, the gravity field begins to remove the energy that had been added during its approach to the large mass. By the time the entity effectively exits the gravity field, it has lost all of the energy it had gained during its path into the gravity field, so that it is restored to the velocity that it had before it entered the gravity field. The effect that you call gravitational red shift, which actually produces both red and blues shifts that are equal depending on the direction of travel in the gravity field, also works in this way. Travel toward the center of gravity from point A to point B produces a blue shift while travel away from the center of gravity from point B to point A produces an equal amplitude red shift.” ….
--
How will you define start and end of Gravitational Field? At what distance from the CG of Star this field will start?-- Can you please give the equations for your calculations….
--
All these start or end points of gr field were created by only one gravitating mass, is it not? What happens to the gravitational pull of other gravitating masses, their gravity will be switched off is it not? -- For your information… you cannot even neglect gravitation of Sun or Moon on oceans on this earth. High and low tides of oceans are caused due to Sun and Moon. You will have to calculate simultaneous gravitational effect just on earth itself. Dynamic universe Model considers gravities of all masses.
--
According to your theory the frequency of electromagnetic radiation will increase and decreases back, near every star, leaving no overall change. Stars will become metal rich and heavy and die-out as all their fuel will be consumed. Universe will become radiation dominated, as all the radiation generated from stars will occupy the whole universe. No new stars or Galaxies can be formed as already formed stars consumed their fuel. That is a contrary to the existing Universe. New stars and Galaxies are being formed in the Universe. I will post my other replies as and when I finish my answers…
Best regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 11, 2017 @ 00:33 GMT
2
Dear Paul,
The answers from 11 to 17 will remain same as in my earlier reply few days back
. …………… Your words……….
…………………….Like in fusion, fission does not generally actually change matter particles into energy photons. The energy photons produced come mainly from freed binding energy, etc. Since your upshifting would produce all of the...
view entire post
2
Dear Paul,
The answers from 11 to 17 will remain same as in my earlier reply few days back
. …………… Your words……….
…………………….Like in fusion, fission does not generally actually change matter particles into energy photons. The energy photons produced come mainly from freed binding energy, etc. Since your upshifting would produce all of the new protons needed to replenish the fuel to be fused in the stars, if you were in some way able to break all of the heavier atoms down into lighter atoms that could also be used as fusion fuel in the stars that fusion material would then build up in the universe cause a runaway increase in the formation of new stars and galaxies that would ultimately fill up all of space. This is because you would not be addressing the basic problem of the continual increase of energy in the universe due to the photon upshifting. Transferring that increase in energy into an increase of matter particles does not solve the problem that the increase in energy would ultimately fill the universe whether it is in the form of energy photons or matter particles.
On the other hand, if the new atoms were not broken down into fusible atoms, as the new matter built up in the universe, more and more of it would be drawn into stars making them denser, so that they would consume their fusible materials faster and more of them would end in super nova explosions, thus creating more of the heavier atoms. You are right that it would not only be new stars that would be affected, but existing stars would also pull some of that extra matter into themselves and also become denser with the same results.
As you say some of that matter would be in the form of larger objects like planets, meteors, and comets, etc., but even some of those would be drawn into stars as the universe became more crowded with such matter objects. No matter how the matter was dispersed in space the continual buildup of matter would ultimately result in large amounts of that matter being drawn into stars and adding to their density, which would make the stars burn out quicker, but would not add any usable fusion material to the stars.
The less dense stars like the sun generally currently outnumber the denser stars that end in a supernova, but as the matter density of the universe increased over time due to the extra midrange atoms generated by the photon upshifting, that would change. Stars would take in some of that extra matter and become denser until most stars were in that denser size range and end in supernovas. Since the denser stars have much shorter lifetimes, this would lead to an increased cycling rate for the photon upshifting, thus generating more new midrange atoms much quicker and at the same time it would also generate large amounts of heavier atoms also in a shorter time due to the greater number of supernovas…………………..
Reply……….
You are confusing here. The frequency shifting will produce matter finally. This completes the cycle ‘energy to matter to energy’. Somewhere matter is burned to produce energy, other place energy converted back into matter. For your information matter to energy conversion will happen inside the stars, where as the energy to matter conversion will happen outside the stars on the radiation which goes grazingly. Read your sentences in the first paragraph above in your words.
Regarding the details of fission and fusion processes it will take some time to work about fully and tell you. What are assuming is not correct. Material to energy balance in the universe will be maintained. That will not be any problem……
There are places like Kuiper belt in our solar system that accumulate all the dead stars and planets whose temperatures will fall out to very low. Many such stars can be seen in infrared astronomy only, not visible to normal telescopes. That will be one of the reasons which can cause the Galaxy death. See my paper for more details of quenching of Galaxies.
Why midrange atoms will be generated by upshifting, it is not possible as an atom will be not be having single frequency. For me matter means hydrogen ions, or protons and electrons, once they are formed, they will be attracted into nearby stars. You are confusing again.
For calculating exact ratios we need experimental results with precise measurements.
In your theory most of the possibilities as you said above will happen as there is no ‘energy to matter conversion cycle
I will continue into my next reply………..
Thank you for all your interest in my paper……..
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 11, 2017 @ 01:33 GMT
3
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words………. The process would speed up because as the amount of midrange atoms built up over time, more and more of that matter would be taken into stars, the stars would become denser and have shorter lives because they would consume more fusible material in shorter times. The hotter more dense stars would generate more photons to upshift per...
view entire post
3
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words………. The process would speed up because as the amount of midrange atoms built up over time, more and more of that matter would be taken into stars, the stars would become denser and have shorter lives because they would consume more fusible material in shorter times. The hotter more dense stars would generate more photons to upshift per unit of time, thus increasing the rate of production of new matter particles to fuse in the larger stars. The denser stars would produce larger numbers of the midrange atoms per unit of time because the denser stars must fuse more fusible materials per unit of time to generate the greater temperatures necessary to keep the denser stars from collapsing due to their greater gravity field. The increase in the rate of production of the midrange atoms would increase the rate of addition of those atoms into stars to make them still more dense and these increases would continue until all existing stars collapsed due to their density becoming so great that no fusion process could generate enough heat to resist the pull of their strong gravity fields. Any new stars that started to form would pull in so much of this matter so quickly that they would also collapse before much of their fusible matter could be fused.
…………………….
…………..Reply………
……. My answers will remain same for 21, 22, 23 and 25 as in my posts few days back, I would like to elaborate a little more on these of your words above…
Let me clarify once again , mid range atoms will not be generated by frequency Upshifting in gravitational fields near stars, as they don’t have single frequency as protons or electrons or neutrons. Your thinking will be irrelevant…that will not happen…
For calculating exact ratios we need experimental results with precise measurements. These measurements are not there at present….. It will take some time…. If no experiment is conducted we can never find answers to your question. Main problem is finance. I know finance and support is given only to Bigbang based cosmologies and nobody else, so probably I can never answer your question, as I will never get support for measurements and experiments I will continue into my last reply………..
Thank you for all your interest in my paper……..
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 11, 2017 @ 01:40 GMT
I dont know why those question marks came in this post... I did not change any thing except my answers.They were not seen in the preview... FQXi to check...
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 11, 2017 @ 06:27 GMT
Dear Paul,
I am giving the full derivation part for frequency shifting again, below… I hope that answers …
Derivation of equations for the effect of movement of gravitational mass on the frequency of the incoming light ray with c:
The rest mass of the photon is = m = E / c2 . Gravitational field of the mass (Sun or star or some gravitational mass) = go . The distance of...
view entire post
Dear Paul,
I am giving the full derivation part for frequency shifting again, below… I hope that answers …
Derivation of equations for the effect of movement of gravitational mass on the frequency of the incoming light ray with c:
The rest mass of the photon is = m = E / c2 . Gravitational field of the mass (Sun or star or some gravitational mass) = go . The distance of the photon from center = r . Energy = E go r /c2 . Frequency of photon = ϑ = E / h or E = h ϑ .
Case1. When the velocity of gravitational mass is opposite to the incoming light ray:
In this case the gravitational field will act as some brake on the incoming light ray.
The gravitating mass is moving with a velocity μ in the opposite direction and applies brake on the photon. This is something similar to the case where the gravitational mass is fixed in position and the photon of the rest mass E / c2 is moving with velocity μ +c
Hence the initial velocity of photon = - μ -c. It’s velocity is towards the gravitational mass. The photon is having a freefall. Its final velocity = - μ -c - got [ where t is the time of flight of photon].
Initial Energy = m (μ+c)2 /2 = E (μ+c)2 /2 c2 = E (μ2 +c2+2μ c )/2c2
Final Energy = ½ (E / c2 )(- μ -c -got)2 = ½ (E / c2 )(μ2 +c2+go2t2+2μgot+2cgot+2μ c )
Change in Energy = ½ (E / c2 ) (go2t2+2μgot+2cgot ), here E = h ϑ that means
Change in Energy = ½ (h ϑ / c2 ) (go2t2+2μgot+2cgot )
Hence change in Frequency = ϑ = 1/ {2 (h / c2 ) (go2t2+2μgot+2cgot )} (32)
Here the frequency increases. The incoming ray from a distant Galaxy will be Red shifted.
Case2. When the velocity of gravitational mass is same direction as the incoming light ray:
In this case the gravitational field will enhance the energy of the incoming light ray.
The gravitating mass is moving with a velocity μ in the same direction and enhances energy of the photon. This is something similar to the case where the gravitational mass is fixed in position and the photon of the rest mass E / c2 is moving with velocity(c- μ)
Hence the initial velocity of photon = (c- μ). It’s velocity is towards the gravitational mass. The photon is having a freefall. Its final velocity = - μ +c - got [ where t is the time of flight of photon].
Initial Energy = m (-μ+c)2 /2 = E (-μ+c)2 /2 c2 = E (μ2 +c2-2μ c )/2c2
Final Energy = ½ (E / c2 )(- μ +c -got)2 = ½ (E / c2 )(μ2 +c2+go2t2+2μgot-2cgot-2μ c )
Change in Energy = ½ (E / c2 ) (go2t2+2μgot-2cgot ), here E = h ϑ that means
Change in Energy = ½ (h ϑ / c2 ) (go2t2+2μgot-2cgot )
Hence change in Frequency = ϑ = 1/ {2 (h / c2 ) (go2t2+2μgot-2cgot )} (33)
Here the frequency decreases. Incoming ray from a distant Galaxy will be Blue shifted.
Case3. When the velocity of gravitational mass is not exactly opposite or exactly in the same direction to the incoming light ray:
In this case the gravitational field will act as some brake or enhance the energy of the incoming light ray depending on (Cos ϕ) of the velocity of gravitational mass relative to incoming radiation, where (ϕ) is the angle between the light ray and velocity of gravitational mass .
The gravitating mass is moving with a velocity μ in the opposite direction and applies brake on the photon. This is something similar to the case where the gravitational mass is fixed in position and the photon of the rest mass E / c2 is moving with velocity μ Cos ϕ +c
Hence the initial velocity of photon = - μ Cos ϕ -c. It’s velocity is towards the gravitational mass. The photon is having a freefall. Its final velocity = - μ -c - got [ where t is the time of flight of photon].
Initial Energy = m (μ Cos ϕ +c)2 /2 = E (μ Cos ϕ +c)2 /2 c2 = E (μ2 Cos2 ϕ +c2+2μ Cos ϕ c )/2c2
Final Energy = ½ (E / c2 )(- μ Cos ϕ -c -got)2 = ½ (E / c2 )(μ2 Cos2 ϕ +c2+go2t2+2μ Cos ϕ got+2cgot+2μ Cos ϕ c )
Change in Energy = ½ (E / c2 ) (go2t2+2μ Cos ϕ got+2cgot ), here E = h ϑ that means
Change in Energy = ½ (h ϑ / c2 ) (go2t2+2μ Cos ϕ got+2cgot )
Hence change in Frequency = ϑ = 1/ {2 (h / c2 ) (go2t2+2μ Cos ϕ got+2cgot )} (34)
Here it can be observed that equation 34 is the main equation and the equation 32 and 33 are special cases of equation 34. It will become equation 32 when ϕ is ‘0 degrees’ and equation 33 when ϕ is 180 degrees.
The stars will give energy ultimately. Depending on the difference of energy in the particular ray the frequency shifting will take place
……………………
I hope I cleared all your esteemed questions and doubts. If you have any more doubts we can discuss anytime
Thank you for asking me so many well knowledged and esteemed questions
Thank you for your valuable time….
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 19, 2017 @ 10:20 GMT
Dear Paul,
Remembering your words ….
“Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 19, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT
…………………………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...
view entire post
Dear Paul,
Remembering your words ….
“Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 19, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT
…………………………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……………….
There is a information…
Can you please arrange observation of frequency shifting as predicted by Dynamic Universe model on Aug 21, 2017 in solar eclipse in USA? I am giving some details below… Best Regards
=snp
…………………………………………
……………
https://www.meetup.com/physicists/events/23
9764595/?rv=me1&_af=event&_af_eid=239764595&https=on
Discuss "The August 21 ‘All-American’ Eclipse of the Sun” @Foothill
• Wednesday, May 24, 2017
7:00 PM
• Smithwick Theatre @ Foothill College
12345 El Monte Rd, Los Altos, CA (map)
• On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 7 p.m., astronomer Andrew Fraknoi of Foothill College will give a free, illustrated, non-technical talk on:
“The Sky Event of the Decade: The August 21 ‘All-American’ Eclipse of the Sun”
in the Smithwick Theater at Foothill College in Los Altos. The talk is part of the Silicon Valley Astronomy Lecture Series, now in its 17th year.
NOTE: Everyone attending this lecture will receive a free pair of certified eclipse-viewing glasses courtesy of Google.
On August 21, 2017, there will be a rare eclipse of the Sun visible throughout the U.S. and all of North America. People in a narrow path from Oregon to South Carolina will see a spectacular total eclipse, with the Moon briefly covering the Sun, and day turning into night. Everyone else (an estimated 500 million people, including all of us in the Bay Area) will see a nice partial eclipse, where the Moon covers a good part of the Sun. The talk will describe how eclipses work, why they are one of nature’s most spectacular sights, what scientists learn during eclipses, exactly when and where the eclipse of 2017 will be best visible, and how to observe the eclipse safely.
After the talk, Fraknoi will be signing his new children’s book about eclipses When the Sun Goes Dark (2017, NSTA Kids) in Appreciation Hall across the courtyard.
Andrew Fraknoi is the chair of the astronomy department at Foothill College and the co-author of Solar Science: Exploring Sunspots, Seasons, Eclipses, and More, a book for educators. He appears regularly on local and national radio, explaining astronomical developments in everyday language, and was named California Professor of the Year in 2007. He is also the lead author of a free, electronic, college textbook, Astronomy, published last year by OpenStax. With three colleagues, he is leading the effort to distribute 2 million eclipse glasses through public libraries, with support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Google.
Foothill College is just off the El Monte Road exit from Freeway 280 in Los Altos. For directions and parking information, see: foothill.edu/news/transportation.php
For a campus map, see: foothill.edu/news/maps.php
The lecture is co-sponsored by:
The SETI InstituteThe Astronomical Society of the PacificNASA Ames Research CenterThe Foothill College Astronomy Program.
We get large crowds for these talks, so we ask people to try to arrive a little bit early to find parking. The lecture is free, but there is a charge of $3 for parking on campus and exact change is appreciated.
Past lectures in the series can be found on YouTube at www.youtube.com/SVAstronomyLectures
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 21, 2017 @ 07:47 GMT
A
Dear Paul,
Thank you very much for your point by point reply. I will be replying them and posting as and when I finish my replies as usual
….…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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.…………………….
…………..Reply……
………….
It may please be noted that experimental results are different from simulations. Experimental results are from the laboratory tests, which are conducted to find reality. These are conducted in the field or in a laboratory. They may be observational results using some telescopes or some other sensors. These results are repeatable by anyone who conducts similar experiment in similar conditions.
On the other hand simulations are done in the computer assuming similar conditions as physical realities. These conditions should have same effects as their realities mathematically. These effects are simulated mathematically on a computer. These are also totally repeatable and their results will depend on the simulation equations used.
In both the cases there can be errors and misinterpretations.
Thank you for your support. I don’t enough finance to support a student to teach him or her; so that the student can earn some money on the basis of what he learnt. I came to fag end of my life. Now I left it to time (God) to decide upon the further course of action………….
Best Regards
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 21, 2017 @ 09:02 GMT
B
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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....
view entire post
B
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
You are exactly correct….
But I feel it is the other way round. Somehow Bigbang based cosmologists could not influence FQXi with their power, money and with their large number of man power.
I don’t know why other scientific theories were never given any financial support. This view is being expressed by some other people also in this contest. C
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Who will decide who will be the competent? Mainstream don’t even know that there exist some other theory other than Bigbang…………..
It is the mainstream scientific community people who will influence. And those who had influence will receive funds and distribute moneys from the Government. Generally the Government representatives do not have the knowledge about the physics.
The Government representatives will not support any individual working outside an University. The mainstream scientific community and physicists don’t allow another theory to come into.
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 21, 2017 @ 12:29 GMT
D
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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...
view entire post
D
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
You are correct
E
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
I was trying to propose a process that converts energy into mass; so that the universe will be in a similar state forever. But according to your model the universe will not maintain the balance.
That’s why I said some physical observation is needed to support either one of our theories.
F
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
I will change my ideas if the observations say otherwise. Dynamic Universe Model is totally based on physical observed data, nothing else…
G
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Yes, thank you, It is acceptable
H
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
I work on observations only, not on belief systems. I don’t force anyone my concept is correct. Dynamic Universe model is for the betterment Humanity and for advancement of science.
Please don’t doubt me. I am seriously for betterment humanity, and not for moneyI
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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.
…………………….
…………..Reply…………
….
Yes it is correct
J
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
5. You are right. Space does not need to bend. It just needs to have positions in which motions can exist and move.
…………………….
…………..Reply………
…….
Thank you, it is correct. There is observation that space is bending, but the path of the light ray bends near gravitational mass.
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 21, 2017 @ 12:57 GMT
Typo
5. You are right. Space does not need to bend. It just needs to have positions in which motions can exist and move.
…………………….
…………..Reply………
�…….
Thank you, it is correct. There is
NO observation that space is bending, but the path of the light ray bends near gravitational mass.
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 21, 2017 @ 12:58 GMT
K
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply………
I started working on this Dynamic Universe Model for the last 35 years and started presenting papers for the last31 or 32 years. Many concepts were not published but I worked out for my self to check stability etc. Some initial errors were corrected.
But I sincerely feel all these work was due to grace of the Almighty or God. I know I was never capable of doing anything like this. I don’t even have the background education for this. I am a firm believer of God…
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 21, 2017 @ 21:27 GMT
L
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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...
view entire post
L
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……… Do the observation to confirm this. Science is just not only doing proposals, but doing repeatable experiments also for confirmation…
M
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
This experiment is sufficient and Good. One more possible experiment is …. we can observe this frequency shifting through VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry) satellites orbiting round the Sun in space, if those satellites are having the required sensors and capabilities.
N
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Good, Just do the observational experiment and see the results. Experiment should be repeatable by others.
O
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
I also will search. Thank you for the nice info. Thank you for the search, you have done a good work…
P
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Please give some references.
Thank you for such nice discussion and for the large amount of time you spent on this Dynamic Universe Model theory…….
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 22, 2017 @ 03:16 GMT
Q
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
This energy is being generated in Stars from mass. That energy will be converted back into mass in this frequency upshifting.
R
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
I don’t think it is necessary. Why you feel some communication links are needed?
S
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Why that is needed? It is not necessary that every energy photon / particle will be converted into mass and vice versa. Some of the energy photons and some particles may be moving in the Universe for trillions of years.
Even for those energy photons that were converted into mass, there is no need to have any communication link.
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 22, 2017 @ 04:17 GMT
T
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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...
view entire post
T
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
……………………. 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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
When the entity itself changes its form from one type of energy to another like mass into energy, there additional energy transfer is it not….?
U
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Not from gravitational energy, the light ray converts its own energy…
V
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
In a uranium or plutonium bomb, when the base element is sub divided into smaller atomic number elements like caesium 137 there was will be a mass value that will be missing. That mass is converted into energy with the formula “E= m c2 ” . This is in addition to binding energy, similarly in Hydrogen bombs also. These are the type of nuclear reactions that happen in stars. Just “Binding energy” transfers as in chemical reactions don’t produce such huge amounts of energy as in stars.
W
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
You are confusing between chemical reactions and nuclear reactions. You have to take a course on these and study further.
Thank you for asking so many class x or class xii level questions. You can refresh your knowledge by studying the Physics text books prescribed to children.Best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 22, 2017 @ 05:11 GMT
X
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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...
view entire post
X
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Sir, please read the paper one time sentence by sentence, and ask me where ever you got a doubt. Give me the page number where you are referring to and ask the question. I cannot write the whole paper again here. Please read it once.
Y
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Not correct, You are confusing between chemical reactions and nuclear reactions. You have to take a course on these and study further.
Thank you for asking so many class x or class xii level questions. You can refresh your knowledge by studying the Physics text books prescribed to children.Z
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Not correct, please refresh your knowledge.
Aa
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
It is true that the cost of many experiments can be very great. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Yes, I can’t afford. Previously also I did not do any experiment.
Ab
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Yes, you are correct, thank you
Ac
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
These were done on earth, Star nuclear reactions are happening at higher temperature and pressure. Of course they were also well understood, they are not just chemical reactions.
Ad
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Thank you for such nice advice.
Yes you are correct. In India also it is same. I thought I will put a clause that if a crop fails, I need not pay, Still negotiations are going on, I visited the land twice. Natural water is available. The land was not fenced. I asked the present owner to provide fencing and bore well for water.
Here Land is not available at affordable prices at this time. All the prices are gone up. Or else I will have to buy a land a distant place that will be problem again for transportation and time. I am living on my small savings.
Thank you for your nice helping advice,
Best regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 22, 2017 @ 06:53 GMT
Ae
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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...
view entire post
Ae
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
You are raising this question again. I already explained. You can read that answer again. This concept is not correct. I already told you. Mid range also will break down in stars. Some further research is to be done on this subject I already explained. Big bang also explains formation upto helium atoms. Why new Galaxies born, why old ones die out or quench are not answered. There are so many reactions are happening in stars.
Af
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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.
…………………….
…………..Reply……
……….
I explained this was not my proposal. That is your proposal. This photon frequency upshifting is according to energy conservation only, please read my paper once again. I explained many times earlier. Read the paper and equations, it is meaning less to ask the same question repeatedly many times. You may ask technically or mathematically. You can ask some elders to explain . You are confusing……
You prove me mathematically what is wrong, where I went wrong or else stop asking same question many times.
Ag
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
You are confusing with your own theory and its results. You are confusing.
Ah
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
You are confusing. You prove it mathematically and show supporting data.
Ai
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
The same question as above, you prove it mathematically with supporting data. You are thinking in a confused way. You are not able to catch it.
Aj
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Any supporting data?
Ak
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
There is no computer model for the universe. Try to understand Dynamic Universe Model mathematics. This model math can be used at micro to solar system or galaxy level. The universe model proposed here is different and Dynamic Universe model is different. Dynamic Universe model is a mathematical theorem. It can be applied many places.
People have money and they think of something stubbornly. Not you I am talking in general. Their thinking should be based on experimental results and observational results. They should work for the progress of humanity and science. Not for the sale of their own theory.
I never sold anything of Dynamic Universe model. Every book and paper is available for free downloading.
If you have some ideas please show them mathematically and prove your results.
If you are having doubts in this model, please come out mathematically. Don’t ask the same repeated questions. If you find any of my answer is wrong please prove it. Come out with data to support your arguments. Be logical.
You are confusing with some of your predetermined concepts. Please refresh your self…
Best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 22, 2017 @ 07:21 GMT
Al
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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....
view entire post
Al
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Some of your primary concepts are wrong. You are confusing. You come out specifically with supporting math and observational data. That’s what I mean to say. Please support your questions with data….
Am
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
That’s what I said, support your arguments to prove your theory with data and observational evidences.
An
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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.
…………………….
…………..Reply…………
….
That what I said , I can prove it mathematically, no problem.
Ao
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Wonderful, you are spending very good amount of time on this model. Thank you for analyzing.
So I will say support your arguments with some form of data from real observations.
I am waiting for your further responses, please don’t ask repeated questions, support your questions with experimental verification and results and equations.
This is a scientific forum is it not….
This part completes your present post
Best regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 24, 2017 @ 11:21 GMT
Dear Paul,
Yesterday I finalized rent contract for the cultivation land as suggested by you.
Thank you for your valuable advice and guidance.........
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 2, 2017 @ 00:26 GMT
Dear Paul,
Hope you will spare a little time to have a look at the new paper.....
"Rotating Universe and Simultaneous Existence of Red and Blue shifted Galaxies in Dynamic Universe Model "
as reply to David Pinyana post few days back...
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 2, 2017 @ 04:45 GMT
Dear Paul,
See the link please....
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2925
And the post referenced at
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 2, 2017 @ 04:38 GMT
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 6, 2017 @ 02:36 GMT
9
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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,...
view entire post
9
Dear Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Prof Paul,
This is not Bigbang based cosmology where experiments like LIGO are designed so that nobody can repeat.
In Dynamic Universe Model results are derived from fundamentals, they are not DESIGNED. I don’t know earlier that such result will come. To be a fact earlier to these equations, I was working on electronics. I switched to this physics by chance, suddenly I thought od some equation on a Sunday after noon about 33 years back. I started trying to find out what that equation is…. That is how it was started.
How can I know this frequency upshifting will happen , do you have any idea?
I started with gravity fields of Newtonian physics, if they are wrong, you show me mathematically
10
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply…………
Ther
e is a light photon corpuscular theory developed by Newton. This Dynamic Universe Model is an extension of Newtonian physics without differential equations in its tensors. His equations are tested for the last 500 years. These equations are used in engineering regularly. Similarly Einstein’s E=mc
2 is a tested equation
I used name rest mass just for understanding, it is the same mass as given in E=mc
2. You can suggest some other name if you don’t like that name “rest mass”. In that equation this mass is not at rest.
11
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Ok use simple name mass. According to Dynamic Universe model also no mass will be at rest. So the mass can be dynamical mass also……
12
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
You are comparing Pico Pico grams with billions of tons of mass….
No change will happen in motions.
13
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
I don’t say everything predicted by Dynamic Universe model will come true. There can be errors. I just said this prediction may also come true. I am confident about this also….
14
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
2. I hope the land rental and crop production on it works well for you. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Thank you, I know that, simply because no funds or support will be given to any theory that goes against mainstream Bigbang based cosmologies. I saw it for the 35 years.
I am hoping that 2 acre land will give enough food for me and wife…..
15
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Yes Prof, you are exactly correct
16
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. . …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Yes, Dynamic Universe model says exactly same….
Thank you for your well knowledged analysis and discussion on this work
I am putting this post here just because, there in that thread it will be burried..............
Best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 6, 2017 @ 08:55 GMT
17
Dear Prof Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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...
view entire post
17
Dear Prof Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. . …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Yes Prof, you are correct.
18
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. . …………………….
…………..Reply……………
.
Yes sir, you are correct.
19
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes sir, you are correct.
20
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes Prof, you are correct.
21
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes , you are correct.
22
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes Prof, you are correct.
23
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes you are correct.
24
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes Prof, you are correct.
Thank you for explaining nicely about Binding energy in atoms, requirement of additional binding energy, and why mass of helium atom is less than addition two protons and two neutrons….
Best
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jun. 6, 2017 @ 10:19 GMT
25
Dear Prof Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes...
view entire post
25
Dear Prof Paul,
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes sir, you are correct.
26
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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
. …………..Reply……………….
Thank you Prof Paul I saw it… It is nice, but your explanations are better….
27
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes you are correct. They have about 8.5Mev Binding energy…
28
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes you are correct.
29
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes you are correct. Nuclear fission is more possible here above iron’s atomic mass.
30
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Thank you sir, I got a fair idea about these, I will contact you when I need more detailed information….
31
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes you are correct. I already told about this in the above that your explanations are much more deeper. I don’t require a detailed math model at present…..
32
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Wonderful work Prof !
33
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
Yes you are correct.
34
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
You have done a wonderful work of basics, this will a big ladder for humanity’s scientific understanding.
I would definitely participate and workout further provided I will get a chance….
May be some concepts of Dynamic Universe Model can be used for simplifying and providing singularity free math models / higher vector models. Previously I found practically while doing modelling of various such problems with vectors using Dynamic Universe model simplifies large amount of work. May be otherwise handling vector fields is very difficult.
I can do that under your guidance only, provided you will give a detailed guidance …………………. …………35
…………… Your words……….
…………………….
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. …………..Reply……………….
No no no sir, No sensible person will ignore such work. For me I will work if I get recognition or not, just for the sake humanity. That’s what I did till today. If recognition comes it will be wonderful.
No sir you are not wrong, you worked out the concepts nicely.
Your analysis is very correct on my work. I hope I replied you suitably.
I am really thankful to God for He had chosen to you to provide me such very nice analysing words to me……………
Best Regards
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 00:32 GMT
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
Author Paul N Butler replied on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 00:48 GMT
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
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 07:56 GMT
Dear Paul,
Thank you for remembering me after so much time...
I posted some replies on my thread, please have a look...
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2726
Best
=snp
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Nov. 3, 2017 @ 07:59 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
snp.gupta@gmail.com
Please discuss your theory in full, instead saying i discussed here or there... It will be confusing to co-relate ...
Mean while I will reply all your quarries one by one ,in my own way...
Best
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Nov. 5, 2017 @ 05:15 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
report post as inappropriate
Author Paul N Butler replied on Nov. 29, 2017 @ 22:12 GMT
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
Author Paul N Butler replied on Nov. 29, 2017 @ 22:17 GMT
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 exist and as it cooled some, energy photons would be created, then as it cooled more matter particles would be created. If the cooling was fast enough, only hydrogen and some helium would be created before it cooled enough to prevent other heavier atoms from being formed. Which concept is crazy depends on whether your photon upshifting actually occurs and if it does whether it occurs at a rapid enough rate to replace the hydrogen atoms that get locked into helium atoms by fusion in stars. At the very least, even if the world came into existence fully formed, there would need to have been enough hydrogen to form stars and to begin the fusion in them to produce the energy photons that would begin the upshifting process. Somehow, there would also need to be enough large gravity objects (large stars, etc.) to do to upshifting to start the process. Of course, you may believe that the universe has always been in existence and had no beginning, but I see no observable evidence to back up that concept either. As an example, if the universe has always existed, it would by now be filled up with all of the helium atoms that would have been made by fusion of all of the hydrogen that would be continuously produced by the photon upshifting.
See the above information about the amount of hydrogen in space.
Your second comment of Nov. 3
You only need to go through any parts of the posts that we still need to work on. The areas where we agree need not be covered again.
Your third comment on Nov. 3
First I am not in a financial position to hire others to work on advancement of the concepts. In addition to that it would not be within the constraints of this test to support it in that way. It is up to man to have an information system structure, such that the concepts will be seen by those necessary to both advance them into practical use and also those who will see its value and will support it financially and with any needed resources, etc. It is man’s overall structural ability that is tested. All of these abilities will need to be in place and working properly to gain the best relationship for man. Man’s current divided and wasteful scientific structure will not be acceptable at that time. Major changes will have to occur one way or another.
As mentioned above, we only need to cover comments that are not understood or we believe need further work to come to agreement, etc.
Your fourth comment on Nov. 3
You should be able to get most of it that has been given at this time from my previous contest papers on this site. Some new information is given in my new paper also. To give it all to you at once would require a very big comment, which would be too large to go through easily. If you find a problem with or can’t understand a part of it as you go through my papers, I will try to go over it with you the best that I can.
Your comment on Nov. 5
1. Yes and as I pointed out, if the gravity field propagates at the speed of light, what any point in space sees as the present state of the UGF at any given time is a combination of various past states of other gravity fields depending on each one’s distance from that point. As an example, if a gravity field source is located five light years from the point, that point sees the condition of that gravity source as it was five years ago and not as it currently is at the present time. If that gravity field exploded and dissipated four years ago, the point would not see that change in its UGF reading for another year. I have seen that some have begun to consider that the gravity field might propagate at a speed faster than the speed of light, but even if their estimates are correct it is still slow enough that the delay effect would be great for great distances.
2. I guess we would first have to determine the details of what the paper wou