Dear Mr Gupta,

You would have had a better essay if you showed how the course of evolution of a galactic formation is very similar to the developmental course of a karyot. By addressing the issue of whether or not they experience the triple cycle of birth-life-death, common to all living. And whether in the course of their existence they experience one of the key events in karyotic life, sexuate reproduction. One can reservedly assume that the observed merging of galaxies point in that direction. That should have been the central theme of your essay. Instead you only made a brief mention of Reproduction but never fully address it in your essay.

Nevertheless you have a new idea, which is much better than the vacuous "emergence" notion that too many other participating essays have evoked. Congrats on that.

Joseph

____________________

    Dear Joseph,

    Thank you for reading my essay....

    Thank you very much for your words of kindly nature. I did not understand the word "karyot" or "karyotic life". Search in Google, Wikipedia and On line dictionary did not give any meaning. My English is poor.

    Hope you will explain me what is "karyot" and "Karotic life" is it same as prokaryote... I dont know........

    Taking it as single cell biological reproduction instead of sexuate reproduction, probably at universe level the sexuate reproduction not possible!

    Other problem I faced is length of the essay limitation.

    Thank you for the nice and encouraging suggestions...

    Best Regards

    =snp.gupta

    4 days later

    Thank you for reading all my essay; I read your essay, and usually (each year) I read all the essays because there is always someone deserve to be read.

    If I understand your theory, is it a linearization of Einstein Field Equations like a parameterized post-Newtonian formalism?

    Ah, I am not a professor.

    Regards

    Domenico Oricchio

    Dear SNP Gupta,

    Thank you very much for reading and commenting on my essay!

    I will try to read some of your papers on the Dynamic Universe Model, that I find interesting.

    Best wishes for your essay too!

    Giovanni

    Sorry SNP Gupta,

    this post had to be placed in my thread, as a response to yours!

    Giovanni

    Dear Domenico Oricchio,

    Thank you for reading my essay and trying to understand it...

    This Dynamic Universe Model never used any Special theory or General theory of Relativity. It is Independent of relativity... or ... is a linearization of Einstein Field Equations like a parameterized post-Newtonian formalism as you asked.

    It is a singularity free N-body problem solution for bodies more than 2 (any number of bodies ). See for an introduction...

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

    Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

    Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model 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.

    With axioms like... 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.

    Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

    Have a look at my blog on Dynamic Universe Model where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

    Best wishes to your essay.

    For your blessings please................

    =snp. gupta

    Dear Paul

    Thank you for all your elaborate replies. FQXi computer system did not show the replies. I was checking my essay every 12 hours, for the last many days. I was using the option in tab Order posts by: ... most recent first option only. It never showed your replies.

    Today I checked in normal way, but opened the link show all replies , and found all replies to my surprise. You even wrote them on 12 Feb 2017. I am sorry for this delay and mishap.

    Probably they (FQXi) have to check the software once.

    I will reply all your very nice and encouraging replies and well thought observations one by one , It may take few more days...

    Thank you very much for all your time and blessings...

    Best Regards

    =snp.gupta

    Dear Paul

    Thank you for all your elaborate replies. I will be keeping portion of your reply with my answer, so that it will not be confusing..

    Your words..." Comment to Your first comment

    I read your paper. It contains some information that seems to me to be contrary to man's usual use of words. Such as:

    clearly see that the light from distant Galaxy when passes grazingly near a gravitating mass like Sun the incident frequency of the radiation will increase (Red shifted) when the relative movement of the gravitating body is in opposite direction to EM radiation and the frequency will reduce when the relative movement of the body is in same direction (Blue shifted).

    Since Blue light has a higher frequency than red light, an increase in frequency is usually called blue shifted and a decrease in frequency is called red shifted. In the above excerpt from your paper you use the opposite form. Is that an error in your paper or is there some reason for the form that you used? It is mentioned that way in several places in your paper.

    You are right that the frequency of an energy photon can be increased into the range of matter particles, but just increasing the frequency to that level does not cause the photon to change into a matter particle. Gamma rays are energy photons that contain enough motion to make a matter particle, but they don't all turn into matter particles. How does your theory explain how that transition from an energy photon to a matter particle works?"..................

    Basically It is the UGF (Universal Gravitation force) which is acting on every particle, which decides future movement of any particle or bigger body. UGF will be big near some gravitating body. In that paper the frequency shift is predicted. Thank you for telling me the small correction, which I will incorporate in the next version of the paper. The words blue and red shifts got inter changed...

    Dynamic Universe model is based on Virial theorem. So energy portion was automatically taken care of... No problem...

    These frequency changes will be visible in the spectrum. I am a theoretical person, never seen through telecope....

    The rest mass is only for only for the sake of measurement of mass value. There is no "Rest" as it is, every particle, or mass will be moving and changing dynamically due to UGF.

    Thank you very much for all your time and blessings...

    Best Regards

    =snp.gupta

    Dear Paul

    Thank you for all your elaborate replies. I will be keeping portion of your reply with my answer, so that it will not be confusing..

    Your words..." Comment to your second comment

    I can understand why you might say that much of what I said in this section of my comment is not required in your theory, but it would seem to me that at least a couple of parts of it would have to be included in your theory in order for it to conform to reality, such as:

    during an interaction that transfers motion amplitude from one entity to another the motion generally transfers from the entity with the greater motion amplitude to the one with the smaller amplitude.

    And: .............. "

    You are taking every motion as some body-body collision result. In Dynamic Universe model these body-body collisions are not there. All the bodies travel according to the resultant vector of UGF.

    We will definitely workout some portions to include them. But as it is it is ok for now except the correction you suggested in the previous reply. This concept of frequency changes near a gravitating mass are to be experimentally verified.

    Your thinking is applicable to the inside portions of masses. They may answer some more questions, We have to check mathematically and verify them with some computer simulations. That will be next stage.

    Thank you very much for all your time and blessings...

    Best Regards

    =snp.gupta

    Dear Paul

    Thank you for all your elaborate replies. I will be keeping portion of your reply with my answer, so that it will not be confusing..

    Your words..." Comment to your third and fourth comments

    I put these two comments together because they are connected in a way that you may not have noticed.

    In your third comment:

    First the idea that I brought in God to put something as his act when my understanding in some way failed is not applicable because, if you look closely, you will see that nothing in that comment is used in any way to explain the structure of the world. The only connection to the structure of the present world that we live in is that it is a temporary structure meaning that it would naturally effectively come to an end through the long term process of its actions. This would happen with or without God. The rest is some of what I have found in my research about God, which is one of the avenues of understanding that is also valid to advance the progression of science. "

    Super Galactic Structures are formed due to gravitation. Dynamic Universe model explains these without any problem, they don't collapse. They move around eath other.

    .........The understanding of the cause of the universe is the most basic and important scientific question to answer. Everything else expands from that point. It is obvious that there are really only two possible answers to that question. The first is that it was created by a very intelligent and powerful God and the second is that it came about from some natural chance occurrence........ "

    God will tell the answers if we meditate. The Universe was not created at one stroke.

    At this point enough is known about the extreme complexity of the structure of the universe and the living creatures within it to easily come to the reasonable conclusion that it is a very intelligently designed and built structure that is well beyond chance probabilities of occurrence. When I first began to research how the world works, I found that at that time science was not advanced enough to logically be able to make that decision and most religious people that tried to convince people about God's existence did not know much about the concepts of evolution, etc. The steady state theory of the universe also seemed to be contrary to the concept of God's creation of the universe, so I tended to lean toward the natural science viewpoint. As time went on and scientific advancement showed that the universe had a beginning and began to unravel the true complexity of the universe and especially of living creatures, it became apparent that it could not have been generated by natural chance occurrences. Today I find that many scientists, especially those who work in genetics and associated fields have come to the same conclusion based on the impossibility of generating all of the needed parts to create the first living creature by chance actions. I find now that the scientists that still desire to believe in the natural creation concept are more and more trying to bend very well-known and easily observed scientific facts that work against the natural generation of the endless world and living creatures in it to make them look like they actually work for production of living creatures and an endless universe, etc..... "

    I am also a firm believer of God, He will give reply. In this paper I showed three properties associated with Universe, Reproduction, Random formation and Random ages of Galaxies. In Quantum Mechanics particles have associated information bits.

    What do you say about these observations....

    Some even try to attribute intelligence to the world that does not actually exist, etc. The information that I gave you about God and his purpose for creating the universe and us is only about what I have found out from my research in that area and mainly applies to his current and future relationships with us and what he says that he will do concerning the universe in the future, etc. It is my answer to the second most important scientific question, which is: Is there a purpose for the creation of the universe and for us in it? From what I have found the answer to that question is of much more importance to us than the first question because, if I am right, the life that we live in this world is only a very small part of what we can have, if we make the right decision. Not only that, being joined to and becoming a part of the one who is able to make this universe, and us, in a loving relationship with him and all other members also in an endless world without entropy, etc. is something I would not want to miss and I also desire that all others learn of this and also not miss it.

    .........."

    I don't know what the purpose of living, reproduction probably...... Why I don't know. It is a natural cause seen at the Universe level.

    In your fourth comment:

    You said that it is my duty to tell the people about what is right. I did that in the part covered by your third comment and you can see that the result is what I said it would be, if I go too far beyond currently accepted beliefs. Maybe I just didn't use simple enough words. I have found that I can desire to save peoples' lives as much as I can, but if they are determined to jump off of a cliff there is not much I can do for them in the long run, but I still try. Since you told me you are also a firm believer in God, I hope more of you than that. "

    Thank you once again for the blessings you are giving so kindly. I also work for the betterment of humanity. We have to find the way for the next generation ... so that they can go further where we leave...

    Thank you very much once again for all your time and blessings...

    Best Regards

    =snp.gupta

    Dear Paul

    Thank you for all your elaborate replies. I will be keeping portion of your reply with my answer, so that it will not be confusing..

    Your words... .......Comment to your fifth, sixth, and seventh comments

    I put these three comments together because they each only require short answers.

    In your fifth comment:

    It is not yet the best time for me to go into the big bang theory, but if you are interested in how the universe was made you can look at the Christian Old and New Testament scriptures. There are many places that give some parts of the information about it, but you could just start at Genesis 1, 1. What we call the universe is called the earth there. It includes the part of the earth that we can observe and also the hidden part that we can't observe that generates the part that we can see.

    .............

    It would be very nice to study such Godly documents. I will surely take your guidance. Thank you for such nice offer. By the way I also read VEDAs. I suggest you search for ..... SRISTI SUKTAM from VEDAs. It starts with one want or desire, ICHHA . From that desire, the whole universe was created one by one.... I don't remember exact words... All these are available on internet.

    You don't have to start Bigbang for that. You can start with Dynamic Universe Model.

    .......In your sixth comment:

    Thank you.

    .............

    Good discussion with you sir, thank you.

    .......

    In your seventh comment:

    I did not know that you were only talking about the body to body collisions that are due to singularities.

    ............."

    There is a small difference between "Body-Body collisions which are singularities" and "all the masses are allowed on their Gravitation only".

    First one tell us why we are staying on earth and second one when all the bodies collapse in to single lump of mass.

    In Dynamic Universe model all the bodies will collapse into single mass when there is a uniform density. But when all the bodies have different masses universe will not collapse, but all the bodies will be moving dynamically. They rotate.

    Thank you very much for all your time and blessings...

    Best Regards

    =snp.gupta

    Dear Paul

    Thank you for all your elaborate replies. I will be keeping portion of your reply with my answer, so that it will not be confusing..

    Your words..."

    Comment to your eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh comments

    I put these four comments together because they each only require short answers.

    In your eighth comment:

    Normally even stars that were less than 1 light year away from each other would tend to hold each other from moving away from the effective center of their mass by gravity. The stars could rotate around that center and, therefore not all come together at that center of mass, but any star that would begin to move away from that center of mass would have more mass in the stars behind it that would pull it back toward the center than stars in front of it that would try to move it away from the center. Once in stable rotation around the center of mass, it would take an outside source of energy (motion) of adequate amplitude to overcome the gravity pull to allow it to escape the gravity pull of the stars in the center of the galaxy area. What kind of dynamical forces are you talking about? I tried to find your paper that you mentioned on vixra, but was unable to find it. I did find a paper of yours titled "Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model and it gave more of an explanation of your theory, but seemed to be missing most of the actual data of the experiment. .............

    Thank you for such nice searching and time you spent on my papers in viXra. Whatever the data available on the internet, were put and shown. The same thing can be further done if there is more actual data was available. I hope you can help me. I sit here in the middle of India. I don't have any other resource except internet. I am not a rich person; I am retired person from a steel plant. I am living with my savings....

    .......

    You have many good understandings, such as the fact that there is no space/time continuum, etc. The biggest problem that I see is the attempt to make the universe an endless time structure by trying to reverse the entropy operation of fusion in stars. To actually accomplish that would not only require capture of all of the energy emitted from the fusion reaction and all of the heavier elements produced by the fusion reaction, it would also require the addition of the extra energy required to force the reverse reaction to occur, much like in chemical reactions. That extra energy source would then be lost for future use and would thus run out at some point in the future also. It is just the nature of entropy to make things run down, such that all interactions cease in the long run. .............

    Thank you for your blessings once again sir. You also have a good understanding...

    Time is endless, but unidirectional. There is no going back in time. All the chemical reactions are unidirectional.

    Once a star loses all its energy it will cool down, form some solid mass like Earth or Jupiter. The lost energy will be converted back into matter due to Gravitation and UGF. This converted matter will form lumps like we stay on earth, these lumps collect some more particles ... new stars will be formed...like this cycle goes on...

    .......

    In your ninth comment:

    You are welcome. .............

    ....... Ok sir.............

    .......

    In your tenth comment:

    The use for gravitational nulls will become apparent to those who need and are able to use them when that time comes. Feel free to speculate.

    .............

    It will good idea for a new Science Fiction novel...!!!

    .......

    In your eleventh comment:

    That is a general problem that I have also had and I believe that others have also had. If you do a paper that is not restricted in that way I suggest that you give some details as to how the data figures about those galaxies are generated. "

    Thank you very much for studying my paper so thoroughly and giving esteemed questions. I am just giving two reported cases of Galaxies / Clusters of Galaxies which are being generated after Bigbang

    [35] Rakos, Schombert, and Odell in their paper 'The Age of Cluster Galaxies from Continuum Colors' Astrophys.J., 677 , 1019, DOI: 10.1086/533513, e-Print: arXiv:0801.3665 [astro-ph] | PDF arXiv:0801.3665v1 [astro-ph] 23 Jan 2008

    [36] C. PAPOVICH et el, CANDELS OBSERVATIONS OF THE STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF CLUSTER GALAXIES AT Z=1.62, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3794v2.pdf

    See the CANDLES web pages also for simple language explanations.

    My abstract also gives real data...

    If you need further data , I will give you....

    Thank you very much for all your time and blessings...

    Best Regards

    =snp.gupta

    Thank you Giovanni Prisinzano,

    Thank you for your kindly words, I am waiting for your esteemed opinion on this Dynamic Universe model and for your future discussion...

    Best Regards

    =snp

    Dear Gupta, you raise a very important for cosmology questions and demonstrate the very great strength of mind. I believe that you could do more if adhered to the concept of moving space-matter. For example, New Cartesian Physic claims that the space-matter moves on forever, as in nature there are no "bricks" from which you can build an absolutely tight with no holes space, which it tries to fill, but it is not possible.

    The concept of moving space-matter helped me:

    1. To convert the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;

    2. To reveal the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface space-matter;

    3. To formulate the law of gravitation Lorentz;

    4. Give the formula of the pressure of the Universe;

    5. To reveal the essence of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

    From New Cartesian Physic great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential, I have in my essay showed the way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and supernatural. It is very close to your idea of Intelligence in the Universe.

    I appreciate your Essay.

    I hope that we will communicate to mutually enrich each other knowledge about the Universe.

    I wish you success!

    Boris Dizhechko

      • [deleted]

      • Post #95

      Dear Satyavarapu,

      I am glad that I could be of help concerning your paper. The problem in papers like these is that when they contain an error, those who read them don't know if you just made an error or if your understanding is actually wrong, which can affect their acceptance of the concepts that you are trying to get across to the readers of your papers. I thought it was likely to be just an error. Hopefully, correcting it will give future readers a more positive reception of your concepts.

      Rather than going back into any of the other things that I mentioned previously, I just want to cover the main thing that I wanted to bring out, which is that when the fusion of 2 hydrogen atoms into a helium atom occurs in a star, most of the mass or matter that was originally in the hydrogen atoms remains in the star in that helium atom. The helium atoms that are produced in that way can also fuse into heavier atoms and this process can continue up to iron. Iron and the atoms that are heavier than that are too close to the center most stable point in the atomic scale to be able to fuse because it would actually take the addition of more energy to cause them to fuse than would be freed in the fusion reaction. When all of the lower elements have been fused, the end result is that most of the matter that was in those lighter elements, is now stored in the new midrange atoms that have been produced. If you could somehow cause all of the matter that had been converted to energy to convert back into hydrogen matter and if that amount of hydrogen matter was equal to the amount that was originally present, then you would have all of the original hydrogen plus all of the newly produced midrange atoms that were produced by the fusion process, which would mean that there would be an increase in the total amount of matter in the universe created from nothing. In your theory you say "This is a nonexpanding universe and matter need not be created to keep the density constant". In this nonexpanding universe the continual increase in the amount of matter that would be created in the form of these newly created midrange atoms would continually increase the matter density of the universe. It would ultimately fill up all of the empty space with this matter and the functioning of the universe would likely break down long before that point.

      There is only one way that you could get what you want and that would be to somehow break down all of those new midrange atoms back into hydrogen atoms, but that would be a transformation that would be contrary to entropy because they contain less energy that could be freed by the conversion process than the conversion process would consume. This would mean that extra external energy would need to be provided that was more than had been freed as energy radiation from the fusion processes that caused the generation of the midrange atoms in the first place. This is because you would have to add back all of the energy that had been freed by the fusion process in order to restore the extra energy that the hydrogen atoms require that is greater than what the midrange atoms require, which is just the amount that had been freed by the fusion process. You would then still need to add an additional amount of energy that would be needed to cause the process to operate in the direction contrary to the natural entropy direction of flow of energy. The additional energy that you would need would have to come from somewhere in the universe and it would eventually be used up. The universe would still run down and cease to function.

      What would actually happen, however, is that most of the energy that had been freed by the fusion process would be scattered throughout empty space and would not be converted back into hydrogen. The matter density of the universe would then remain the same, but all of the hydrogen and the other lower elements that can fuse would eventually be converted into the midrange elements that can't fuse and the stars would all go out. There is just too much empty space for the energy photons to disperse into and too few very large masses that would generate very large and strong gravity fields to in any way convert the photons back into matter particles to allow any very large percentage of them to be converted back into matter. I know that is not what you want to hear, but I believe that if you look at energy photon dispersion in open space per unit of distance from the source, etc. and analyze the percentage of the total space in the universe that contains the strong enough gravity fields to do the conversions, you will find that I am right about it. In addition you would need to consider all of the energy photons that strike objects in the universe, such as those that interact with atoms on the earth and are either completely absorbed or experience frequency decreases as a result of giving up some energy to an electron in an atom, etc.

      Much of the rest of your theory is good, however, except as pointed out earlier.

      Sincerely,

      Paul

      Even though I signed in only about 5 to 10 minutes before I sent the previous comment and checked on the bottom line and it said I was still logged in just before I sent it, it still logged me out and the comment came up as anonymous. That needs to be fixed by FQXI.

      Sincerely,

      Paul

      Dear Boris Dizhechko,

      Thank you very much sir,

      You have very nicely explained about your theory. It is very good you have applications like

      1. To convert the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

      ....Used in Quantum Mechanics... it states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa... Very Good application.

      2. To reveal the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface space-matter;

      ......................... I did not understand.....why it is closed SURFACE ?

      3. To formulate the law of gravitation Lorentz;

      It is one of the alternatives to general relativity in weak field approximation

      ..... ..................Is it also used in Quntum Mechanics.... ?

      4. Give the formula of the pressure of the Universe;

      ................ Probably you may know Aether was not found yet.........

      5. To reveal the essence of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

      ................... I did not understand, what is "surface" of Corpuscles?

      6. From New Cartesian Physic great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential, I have in my essay showed the way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and supernatural. It is very close to your idea of Intelligence in the Universe. ...................... Very Good, Congratulations!

      7. I hope that we will communicate to mutually enrich each other knowledge about the Universe.

      ....... ...........Yes Boris, thank you very much, we will communicate

      I know very little amount of Russian, I learned it in 1982.

      Best wishes to your essay also

      =snp.gupta

      Dear SNP. Gupta, distance, location, age and reproduction of galaxies in our dynamic Universe are constantly attention New Cartesian Physic, so I appreciated your work. However, someone us down and I say do not let perish New Cartesian Physic, still this is Descartes. 1. The certainty principle Heisenberg-Dizhechko (I added your name) in the New Cartesian Physic claims to highlight in the universe is infinitely small point independent object and make a move, you must attach to it infinitely great momentum. It speaks about absolute strength space. 2. the law of constancy of flow force in the universe is a generalization of Gauss's Law for electric charges. Closed surface is an imaginary, mental experiment. The Act gives us the inverse-square law. 3. The law of gravitation Lorentz in New Cartesian Physic has a simple form, I brought in the essay. 4. The formula of pressure of the universe I brought from the forms of ...

      4. The formula of pressure of the universe I brought from mass-energy equivalence formula, it coincided with the formula of the law of constancy of flow forces. Here's the formula-the flow of forces through an imaginary surface around the particles is equal to the product of the speed of light, Planck's constant. Stream for New Cartesian Physic is not needed-it replaces the concept of moving space-matter. All this is considered for corpuscles and before New Physic Cartesian problem of integration for the accumulation of corpuscles. I wish you success! Boris Dizhechko

      Your assessment:

      "Slowly life of the stars and hence subsequently the life of Galaxy will come to end because of their electromagnetic radiation. Galaxies tend to evolve from spiral to elliptical structure and they perish to form Blue clouds known as Galaxy "quenching". Hence we can say that our Universe had reproduction ability, which is a very slow process. Universe produces new Galaxies, and the already formed Galaxies perish slowly. Ours is single universe and is a closed one. In other words, our Universe reproduces its Galaxies, as and when light and other electromagnetic radiation condenses to form enough matter."

      I see no mention of exploding stars creating elements that did not exist before the first stars formed, elements other than hydrogen, helium and lithium. Not in your theory?

      Jim Hoover