So Thank you Branko, So that equation (2) is correct , hence no problem...

Good survey, the there should be details of persons name and email id, in that excel sheet...

What do you say...

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 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 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....

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 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...

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....

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 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 ...

On the contrary Mr. Gupta. People do not like to give personal information. What they want to give has in the biography. Many were put email in the essay. I'll send the Excel file to the translator for review.

Regards,

Branko

Gupta,

You seem to have substituted the results of a computer model for empirical observation. There are several mentions in the essay where you claim that galaxies are being created. Presumably, you mean that galaxies are being created even now. Can you cite an empirical observation to support this claim?

Best regards,

Gary Simpson

    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...

    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...

    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 Branko,

    Thank you for the nice reply, Do it as you wish.

    You are correct, many people keep duel personalities, they don't want their real Identities come out when they tell the truth. But in scientific world also this real identities problem exists.... !!!

    Best Regards

    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

    Dear Garry Simpson

    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.

    There are many other papers and websites also if want them I will give them,

    By the way, see the attachments to this post, to see these files for your quick reference...

    Best Regards

    SNP. GuptaAttachment #1: 9_Gy_age_6660b4e3d2ebf7b447d16a86803515e9c472.pdfAttachment #2: Candles_Gal_born_after_BB_1110.3794v2.pdf

    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

    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