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.

In this essay, the property of reproduction and the property of intent of the biological world are shown to be existing as properties of the universe. The Universe behaves as though it is having its own mind.

How...

I am reproducing the parts of the essay below for you to comprehend easily ......

.... Intent.....

'..... 1.1 About Dynamic Universe Model: In our Dynamic Universe every mass is moving in a direction and goal determined universal gravitational force (UGF) as the indomitable resultant vector of gravitational forces acted by all the other bodies in the Universe. This UGF is not constant force acting in only one direction. This resultant UGF vector force is varying according to ever varying dynamic movements and positions of all the masses in the Universe from time to time. In Dynamic Universe Model, this UGF is the fundamental concept; this model calculates this force "UGF" from moment to moment using its mathematical laws on each and every mass in the SITA simulations. In this way many present-day unsolved physics problems were solved. This method is different from conventional two body problem solution.[10]......'

This UGF sets the goals for every Galaxy or for every mass..

...... Reproduction......

Galaxies take birth in different times and quench (die) in different times in different directions. But the positioning of Galaxies is not random, they will come to a stable 'Dynamic Equilibrium' positions due to UGF is the main theam.

Probably you may have a look at the points given by FQXi as guidelines...

This essay is related to COSMOLOGY, This essay is, Original and is entirely different from all the previously published papers by author, It is unpublished. It is Technically correct. This essay covers the long-term, large-scale goals. This essay addresses questions such as:.............

* How did physical systems that pursue the goal of reproduction arise from an a-biological world?

Relevance:.. Universe is having Galaxies, which take birth and death is happening. In the Cosmos the biological world is also a part in which is reproduction is taking place. The same thing is happening in the Galaxies. In this essay this reproduction ability is emphasized.

* What general features -- like information processing, computation, learning, complexity thresholds, and/or departures from equilibrium -- allow (or proscribe) agency?

Relevance:.. Computer simulations were shown to support the paper.

* How are goals (versus accomplishments) linked to "arrows of time"?

Relevance:.. Here Goals were created by the Mathematics of Dynamic Universe Model in the form of Universal Gravitational Force (UGF). This UGF is the total resultant force on any mass ( here in this case the individual Galaxy) which decides the path to be followed in the next instance. That is how the time is pulling every Galaxy..

* What separates systems that are intelligent from those that are not? Can we measure this separation objectively and without requiring reference to humans?

Not Addressed...

* What is the relationship between causality - the explanation of events in terms of causes - and teleology - the explanation of events in terms of purposes?

Not Addressed...

* Is goal-oriented behavior a physical or cosmic trend, an accident or an imperative?

Relevance:.. Here the goal-oriented behavior is a physical or cosmic trend.

Many papers and books were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe

Additionally you please have a look at the CONCLUSION of the essay.

No please...

This Dynamic Universe Model is different from 'simple planetary model' of two body system. I just gave that example so that you can visualize the centrifugal force.

Now you will have to visualize all the gravitational forces of all the masses on that body. That will be UGF. Then at that time this UGF will include the centrifugal forces of all the masses. You can not even ignore the gravitational forces of Sun and Moon on you while you are standing on our Earth. High tide and low tide of seas and oceans are caused by Sun and Moon. Just solving two body problem is not the solution...

You may please have look the paper on how 'No Dark matter' concept is predicted long back using Dynamic Universe model and how it is nullified. This problem arises due to the two-body problem concepts of star circular velocities in a Galaxy. You can have a look at 'Missing Mass in Galaxies' paper in the tab 'all the published papers' in Dynamic Universe model blog. It shows how to solve 'observed star circular velocities in galaxies' using multi body problem solution. You can very easily answer all such many questions using multi body UGF acting on a single mass concept.

Observed accelerated expansion of the universe in far-field supernova observations, are easily explained using observed 'Blue shifted Galaxies' at doi ... dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojmsi.2017.51009 in Jan 2017.

'The cosmological constant, dark energy" are not required and are not present in Dynamic Universe Model. And the observed Hubble constant is different in every twenty years for the last 120 years....

Please have a look at the parts of essay where your questions were discussed....

2.1. Age of Universe: The concepts by Lemaitre, Edwin Hubble and Alexander Friedmann in the 1920s became known as the Big Bang theory, gave the universe some age. Then at that time Hubble constant approximated as 550 km/s/Mpc, the universe had an age as 1.8 billion years which is less than then age of Earth as 2 billion years. The errors by Walter Baade in 1952, and Allan Sandage et al, in 1958 forced a correction in the Hubble constant, to 75 km/s/Mpc. This gave an age as 13.0 billion years, which is much higher than the re-measured age of the Earth of 4.55 billion years. Later the Hubble constant found by Sandage and Gustav Tammann in 1970s gave values around 50-60 km/s/Mpc, give an age of 16-20 billion years, consistent with globular cluster ages. Through Hubble space telescope (HST) [6] got a value of 72 km/s/Mpc + or -10 %. WMAP and Planck spacecraft gave an age of the universe at 13.80 +or - 0.3% billion years. Thus this cosmic age problem was discussed in the last 120 years in various ways and the outcomes of discussions were different in every 20 years. It is most probably Special relativity not applicable or redshift is not a measure of velocity of Galaxy, as distant galaxies are moving away from us at much higher velocities than speed of light.

Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model:

No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

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

Dear Author Joe Fisher,

Thank you for your comments on my essay. I did not understand why you are calling Galaxies as..." imaginary invisible separated galaxies"...They are visible to any person through a telescope. This same telescope, a similar one with lower power is used for seeing distant objects. They can be seen by anyone.

Hope you will clarify.

I will be giving my comments on your essay, near your essay only instead of discussing here.

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 Harry Hamlin Ricker III,

    Thank you for the nice complements.

    Main problem was the length of the paper. I have to delete many related paragraphs to adjust for the acceptable length.

    In this essay, the property of intent of the biological world and the property of reproduction are shown to be present as properties of the universe. These properties were deducted from UGF- the Universal gravitational force acting on any mass, and the fact that Galaxies originate and quench at different times and at different distances irrespective of Bigbang. The Universe behaves as though it is having its own mind.

    This paper was not published earlier, it was a new concept. I have to give the supporting graphs and conclusions of research. Hence I kept this discussion related to the topic at the conclusion.

    I request you to please have a look at the question asked by Al Schneider (wrote on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 07:59 GMT) and my reply in the above for some more points on your observation.

    4 days later

    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

        Thank you very much for the nice words. Where to find this ... ' M-r Andrew Scott's article where you found very costly remarks'... please suggest me

        Dear George Kirakosyan!

        Thank you very much for evaluating my work high. I also evaluated your work very high. I downloaded the paper by V. G. Gurzadyan and R. Penrose you suggested...

        They wrote on CCC cosmology...

        There are some basic problems in WMAP satellites' instrumentation and software. WMAP cannot eliminate Microwave radiation from Stars, Galaxies and clusters. If you calculate CMB using Stephen-Boltzmann law there will be nothing left from BB generated CMB radiation...

        Please have a look at my essay on CMB in FQXi few years back

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1607

        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 Branko

          My English is poor, I am sorry for that...

          Thank you for your comments, and for trying to understand Dynamic Universe model. Thank you for well esteemed comments... I did not reply on what you already agreed.....

          1. About: Have you any value for UGF?

          -This UGF is not constant force acting in only one direction or having only one value.

          In our Dynamic Universe every mass is moving in a direction and goal determined universal gravitational force (UGF) as the indomitable resultant vector of gravitational forces acted by all the other bodies in the Universe. This resultant UGF vector force is varying according to ever varying dynamic movements and positions of all the masses in the Universe from time to time. In Dynamic Universe Model, this UGF is the fundamental concept; this model calculates this force "UGF" from moment to moment using its mathematical laws on each and every mass in the SITA simulations. In this way many present-day unsolved physics problems were solved. This method is different from conventional two body problem solution. This UGF sets the goals for every Galaxy or for every mass..

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

          -Large voids of the order almost 30 percent of observable universe are present were present in the Universe. Large scale mega Galactic structures exist in our Universe...

          3. About: No Homogeneity; I do not agry.

          -Densities of Earth, Moon and Sun etc., are different compared to vacuum in between. Inter Galactic spaces are so big compared to sizes of Galaxies. Observationally Universe is not having uniform density anywhere.

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

          - Hahaha !!!. You are correct, I also agree....

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

          - Please give some reference..

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

          - You have to see Blue shifted Galaxies and Quasars etc, also; as red shifted Galaxies are only 40 percent in the Universe.

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

          - Mathematics produce square root of (-1) as i. But where is it. How will you represent it in reality? Physically nonexistent. In Dynamic Universe Model only Physically existing things, which are real and observable were taken. Why to use a non-existing and imaginary thing...?

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

          - Please give some references... Differential and Integral equations give rise to Singularities like Blackholes and Bigbang...

          9. About: 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.

          - Bigbang is based on General Relativity, Please give some references.

          10. About: 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.

          - Very Good...!

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

          - Very Good...! Wonderful...!

          12. 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.

          - Very Good...! You are exactly correct !

          13. About: Of course, your article is outstanding.

          - Thank you once again for the nice appreciation...!

          Best

          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 Branko,

                Thank you for the fast reply.

                Thank you for your nice offer, we will definitely do some combined papers.. no problems!

                About your paper at... http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View

                /5752

                In equation (2) : 1-1 = 0, hence n^0 = 1,

                Equation (2) becomes...

                m = k*mq ( m with subscript q),

                Probably every other equations also change

                Probably there is some typographical error....

                May please look once again....

                Best Regards

                Dear John Edward LaMuth,

                Thank you for your interest on my essay and good question...

                Please See above... my reply to the question by...

                Al Schneider wrote on Jan. 27, 2017 @ 07:59 GMT

                and my reply to...

                Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Jan. 31, 2017 @ 14:49 GMT

                I hope it will clarify your question, if not we can discuss again

                Best

                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