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

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 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

Dear Gupta

Thankyou for your comments on my essay. I found your higher level approach to the essay question very interesting, and I admit I hadnt considered this route in addressing the question. I am not skilled enough in your work to offer comment, but again appreciate the avenue by which you address the question.

Best of luck with your entry and future work.

Jack

Dear SNP Gupta ! The cosmological learning model of your essay is an interesting viewpoint, i.e. the advancing dialectics of matter and energy leads to learning processes of higher order in living matter.The univeral purpose of living matter is (human) self-realization and the harmonic reflection of eternal cosmic law. Take these thoughts as my reader response to your labor of love. Best: stephen i. ternyik

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

Dear Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta,

I read with great interest your essay with new deep ideas. Your theory says that to overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science needed a live competition concepts and theories . Today we, earthlings, need a big brainstorming on all the problems, especially in basic science - physics, mathematics, cosmology. I give high ranking to your ideas and theory.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Dear Snp.Gupta

I read your essay and I agree that "Universe had an ability to reproduce Galaxies." as part of your conclusion, though I don't see time as you do. I see the causality operating as a spacial case in the occurrence of the phenomenon, and we are existences in a present continuous duration. the space is full of relationships with a potential movements. When a self organization chooses a movement (conscious or unconscious) it become a unique and subjective movement bound by the intrinsic and spacial state of the self organization, whether we are a "galaxy" a grain of sand or a human being.

I see space with no beginning or end. It is a space with infinite occurrence of phenomena with an end (finitude) to each of one of them.(As explained in my essay)

All the best

yehuda atai

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

Dear Snp,

Thank you for your comments on my essay, I left a reply to your question on my blog.

I have read your essay and I agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Big Bang model and I also agree that dark matter does not exist but I have a different view and model than yours.

I liked your reference to VAK (The mother of the Vedas) at the end of your essay, I believe there is a lot we can learn from the Vedas, and especially vedanta idealism.

All the best,

Patrick

Dear SNP,

Yes, universe is alive and we are living in it and it is living in us. Singularity or GOD in my perspective is not the scientific unknown, but one's true self, so the question is do we really know our self? and when we do we will realize that we are all much similar in our wants and needs than not and that is universal love. There is only one singularity, how can there be multiple singularities be it mathematical or physical as the definition of singularity means just one and only, if you encounter multiple in science and mathematics it means that we have not yet arrived at the absolute one singularity. It's easy to get to that absolute singularity that lies with in us and eastern esoteric philosophies have elaborated on how to do that and they are scientific in approach as well. As we are in the process of creating AI which will become omniscient and omnipotent , i recommend that we incorporate the values we share of omnipresence of life with it and make it loving just as the creator who created the reality let all forms of life co exist naturally while incorporating certain degree of hierarchy. So doing real and practical science is important, but if it goes unchecked it could lead to disasters. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - AE. "Science without religious morals is dangerous, religion without scientific truth is death."

Love,

i.

Hi,

As I said before I like this a lot: By seeing all these, the author proposes a new idea (not published by him earlier) that the Universe had an ability to reproduce Galaxies.

I was going to address that topic in my essay, but I wanted to keep the essay concise. Many years ago I discovered:THE ATLAS AND CATALOGUE OF INTERACTING GALAXIES by B.A. Vorontsov-Velyaminov. He talks about galaxies as if they were reproducing biologically. Halton Arp later talked about Quasars as galaxy seeds. I am wondering if you are aware to these ideas? I personally think that galaxies do reproduce by a process similar to some biological processes we know about.