Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe by Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

You are referring to a planetary gravitational model wherein a planet circling a star or planet keeps in orbit without falling by gravity due to the centrifugal force. But such a model based only on gravity does not explain the observed star velocities in galaxies and the observed accelerated expansion of the universe and far-field supernova observations. UGF cannot correlate and explain the cosmological constant, dark energy, and the observed Hubble constant.

Dear Author Gupta,

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 invisible separated galaxies.

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

Hi, I think that this essay is very interesting and the topic well worth thinking about, but only the last paragraph in the conclusion addresses the essay contest topic. I would have liked that to have been discussed rather than what was discussed.

Dear Gupta!

Many thanks for your great opinion.

I am just happy to see that we are not alone in our views!

Maybe in any time people will be realized that the way of natural thinking is more preferable in science than any beautiful creativity! Now I am starting to study your work (with pleasure!) I will tell you about it after some time.

I suggest you to read M-r Andrew Scott's article where I find very costly remarks!

With best wishes!

Dear Gupta!

Your work is very interesting by informative and by analytical arguments, that shows the serious lacks of present representations in the cosmology. I welcome many your assertions, particularly, concerning to absence of dark energy-matter. I am also sure there are not such things, and questions should be solved by some other ways.

I see yours interesting approach to problems of living - unliving forms of material, related to contest question.

I have nothing against your serious arguments on the paradox of galaxies life and existence of our Universe; it looks you are right! However, this question also should be solved in other ways; in my view, the big bang (BB) is out of doubt. Moreover, the BB, Hubble's expansion and the gravity phenomenon become strongly interconnected each to others, as well as with the single primordial substance of all things that are the electromagnetic field. (It was Einstein's idea and I long working on this.) I have evaluated your work as high, and I only friendly asking you to check up your approach to BB; it maybe there was a few BB? Check for example work of R. Penrouse & V. Gurzadian: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.5162.pdf

Best wishes

Dear Mr. Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

Have you any value for UGF?

I will briefly comment on your: Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:

No Isotropy; In fact we have an approximate uniformity in all orientations.

No Homogeneity; I do not agry.

No Space -time continuum; In fact Space and Time are phenomenon like others.

Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); I agry.

No singularities; There is something wrong with diplomas of those who support the concept of singularity.

No collisions between bodies; This is explained extensively by R. Bošković.

No Blackholes; I agry.

No warm holes; I do not know.

No Bigbang; My Theory show that all structure coexist in one point of time.

No repulsion between distant Galaxies; I agry.

Non-empty Universe; I agry.

No imaginary or negative time axis; I agry.

No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; That is a mathematical tool, if it produces results, why not.

No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; This is explained in Temur Kalanov brilliant papers.

No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition;

For the time it was created, GR was very advanced. It is now outdated. It is the Mach principle, which is also promoted by Einstein, the solution to everything.

No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; I agry.

No many mini Bigbangs; I agry.

No Missing Mass; I agry.

No Dark matter; As you can see in my formula (17), it is not necessary dark matter, dark energy, also supersymmetry to relate the fundamental constants of nature.

No Dark energy; I agry.

No Bigbang generated CMB detected; You can see my solution here. http://vixra.org/abs/1602.0095

No Multi-verses etc. What is Multi-verses, part of the Whole? Then, Universe is enough. But if we do not understand the whole, we are inventing new terms.

Of course, your article is outstanding.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Mr. Gupta

About: Proton shift ... I did not understand...

Newton's gravitational theory, it always works, although few people understand.

You may not understand Proton shift based on one reading. The important thing is that it gives results. But I assure you that my Theory of Unity between the Whole and its Parts is much easier to understand than the theory of relativity, which for 100 years nobody understood. If you apply my theory to cosmology, little by little, you will increasingly understand and accept.

I propose that we together do an article about cosmological structures. I'd based my theory simulate a hypothetical and artificial Cosmos and you make comments comparing the results obtained with the real Cosmos.

About: Witticism.... And What is this unique structure that has the same orbital and rotation speed?... Compared with what? ...

Good question. It's like in a police investigation. If they know that some people were in the same place and at the same time of the crime, and then analyze their possible involvement.

For example: Define the following hypothetical rate:

Rotational speed v = sq (Gm / r) and the orbital speed V = sq (GM / R)

G-universal gravitational constant,

r - the radius of the structure,

M- mass of the structure,

m - mass of the structure that has the same relationship to the whole universe as the square of the radius of m = (Mu / m = Ru2 / r2).

Mu- mass of the universe

Ru-radius of the universe

R- radius which corresponds to the mass M, R = sq (M / m)

Than in http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/5752

In formulas (7) and (8) we get two masses that satisfy the conditions set out in Theory. For these two masses is also v = V. Now we know that these two masses are unique in that it is v = V. Also, we conclude that such masses are limits, such as the limits are some inputs. It is not for me to say, but it is very indicative that the mass of Chandrasekhar limit has similar value as in (7).

So we actually compared the speed of masses m and M. Note that m and M represent same object, as r and R and also Compton wavelength represent same object.

More at my post.

Regards,

Branko

I fail to fully see how this paper relates a mindless universe to any of the phenomena of intent. Could you explain?

John L

You commented on my paper's page:

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...

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

Dear Mr. Gupta

Equation (2) m=mqk^1-1/k Is OK becouse: 1-1 = 0, hence n^0 = 1, is only for k=1, therefore m=1*mq, ie. mq=mq, What is expected.

I propose to carry out a survey among the participants of contest. Questions are in attachment in Excel. There is also accompanying text. If you wish, we can together to propose this to everyone.

Regards,

BrankoAttachment #1: Survey.xlsx

Dear Mr. Singh

But Mr. Singh, think about that you say. "UGF can not correlate and explain the cosmological constant, dark energy, and the observed Hubble constant." It is not part of UGF, therefore it needs to explain the one who proposed it, not UGF.

Regards,

Branko