Dear Paul,

Simplicity cannot be simplified. You have a complete surface do you not? And your complete surface am always in contact with parts of other surfaces am it not? It logically follows that only a single physical visible infinite surface could ever exist. I never stated that light did not exist. I stated that only infinite non-surface light existed. I also implied that if you looked directly at the sun, you could verify that sunlight never moved away from the surface of the sun. Sunbeams, however, do seem to move from the surface of the sun. This could only happen if the sun sheds radiants that turn into non-surface light when they strike the atmospheric surface that exists between earth and the sun, and illuminates the earth's surface when they strike it as well. An amoeba's surface has to be as simple as all other surface am. One single, sole, unified, visible, infinite surface that am occurring in one, single, sole, infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light am not my idea. It am the only way that one, single, sole, physical state could ever exist.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Joe,

I would still like for you to answer my questions and tell me about the nature of the infinite dimension so I can understand how it fits into what I see when I look at the world around me. Part of my work in this world has shown me that people do not always mean the same things when they use the same words. It is apparent to me that you do not accept man's standard concept of a 3 dimensional world, but at the same time you must have a way to explain the concepts of directions that one can go or move relative to other things that he can see around him to go from one place where he is near some things to another place where he is not near those things, but is near other things, and to go there faster or slower etc., which are very easy to observe with our eyes. A theory that can't explain how these simple every day observations of things in this world work could not be true.

It is just as logical for every object to have its own complete individual surface and that surface can be in contact with the surfaces of other objects.

Do you consider the air around us a surface? I ask this because you say that surface is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, but when I am in a room, the ceiling, walls, and floor surfaces are illuminated by light from a ceiling light, but the air does not appear to be illuminated by light. It appears to be invisible. I see right through the air and see the walls behind it, but the surface of the walls blocks vision of anything beyond the walls. If I turn the light off, all I see is black. Did the ceiling, floor, walls, and myself all suddenly turn black, but are still illuminated by the infinite non-surface light or is the light not always illuminating all of the surface so that some of it is not always visible?

At the bottom of page 7 of your paper, you say "Infinite non-surface light requires no empowerment because it is a nonentity." An entity is something that exists, therefore, a nonentity is something that does not exist because the prefix non means not. Also, on page 2 in the next to bottom paragraph you say "I use the word "am" because using the word "is" implies that there was a different physical condition prior to the is, best described by the use of the word "was".". This does not get away from the connection with the word (was) because (am) is the first person present tense word for state of being (I am here.) The first person past tense of (am) is (was). (I was here.) You were referring to the third person present tense word (is) (It is here.) and the third person past tense word (was). (It was here.) Only the second person word for state of being does not use the word (was). The present tense form is (are) (You are here.) and the past tense form is (were). (You were here.) You could change from (am) to (are), but it still has the past tense state word (were), so I don't know that it would really help much to get your point across. You could try using a modifier word like endlessly or eternally, etc.

Do the radiants have a surface and what is the speed of their travel from the sun to the earth? How do the radiants turn into light when they hit a surface? From what you have told me so far the radiants seem to be a lot like energy photons to me. How does your theory handle light that is not visible such as microwaves or radio waves?

Why can't there be more than one object, each with its own complete surface and its own physical state that may or may not be illuminated by light depending on whether light is present and hits (interacts with) it? That sounds just as logical to me. Maybe you can correct me if I am wrong.

Sincerely,

Paul

    Dear Paul,

    Simplicity cannot be simplified. One real observable Universe must only have one infinite dimension. Only infinite surface exists, invisible three dimensional empty space does not. As I explained in the essay, because there am only one dimension, one only sees a disc when one looks at a sphere. One only sees a rectangle when one looks at a cube. One only sees a PLETHORA of seamlessly enmeshed surfaces when one looks in any direction at any time. One's surface cannot go anywhere without it always touching other surfaces, as the single law of the real observable Universe has to be consistent, there must only be one, single, sole, infinite surface that am occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.. I do not know anything about microwaves, or permanent waves, or waving goodbye, but I wish you a respectable adieu.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Dear Joe,

    If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them. In man's standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point objects or line objects. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional objects. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man's current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional object to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a spherical baseball on a table and look at it, I don't see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional object. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles and the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional object. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don't appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some things that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these things. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, things would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.

    I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many objects that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man's current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.

    Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren't actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I'm sure you will agree to that.

    Sincerely,

    Paul

      Dear Paul,

      You do not see "objects" when you look around. You see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed surfaces.

      All real visible entities have a real visible surface. Light does not have a surface, therefore, light is indisputably a nonentity. All real visible places have a real visible surface. It would be physically impossible for infinite surface to have any finite gaps.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear anonymous Paul,

      You wrote: "If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the things that we see as we see them" Every real "thing" that you see has a real visible surface. That means that only a single infinite visible surface could possibly exist. Obviously, you can manufacture a finite number of boxes. But each box has to have a real visible surface, Each real tree that produced the wood from which some of the finite number of boxes were made had to have a real visible surface. Each of the nails used to hold a box together must have had a real visible surface. As I explained in my baseball item, the real visible surface of a baseball never travels at a finite speed between two measured points. You can clearly see the real surface of a baseball whether it is purportedly moving at 90 miles an hour, or whether it am stationary. The disc that you actually see merely changes size infinitely throughout the game.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Joe,

      Here is my previous message edited to remove objects. I hope that is more understandable to you.

      If there is only one dimension it still must present to us the entities that we see as we see them. In man's standard concept of a one dimensional world, you could only have point entities or line entities. Even the discs or squares that you mention would be considered two dimensional entities. This means that your concept of a single dimension would have to be different than man's current concept. You seem to be either unable or unwilling to describe how your single dimension concept works to allow what man would at least call a two dimensional entity to be in our world if it contains only one dimension. When I put a baseball on a table and look at it, I don't see just a disc. I can clearly see that the center of the image of the ball is higher or closer to me than the edges. As I move my head to the side, I can see that the ball continues to bend around and touches the table on the bottom side. If I continue to look at the ball and move my head past the top of the ball in the other direction, I see the same thing on that side. Putting this continuous image together it is clear to see that the ball is not just a disk, but is actually spherical in shape. If I pick the ball up and hold it in my hands with my fingers wrapped around it, I can feel the continuous curvature of the ball all around it, which confirms my vision of it as a sphere. This shows me that it is what man calls a three dimensional entity. If I look at a cube it may look like a rectangle if I only look at it from straight above it, but again, if I move my head around so I can see its sides also, it can be clearly seen to be a cube. If I hold a cube in my hands I can easily feel the six straight sides that meet at what man would call ninety degree angles to form twelve joints between them that meet at the eight corners that confirm to me that my vision of it as a cube and not just a rectangle is valid. It is another example of what man would call a three dimensional entity. Your single dimension would have to support these observations to be valid, but you don't appear to be able to explain how that would work. When I look at the world around me, I see some entities that have surfaces that are closer to me and others that are farther away from me. There appears to be space between many of these entities. I believe that you would say that it is not empty space, but is the atmosphere and that as I move through it my surface is in complete contact with its surface except any part of me that is against the surface of something else. Since I am enclosed within this surface, this would explain how the organs in my body have their own surfaces even though they are completely enclosed in the surface of my body. In the same way each cell in my body has its own complete surface inside my body. The liquid inside of those cells also has its own complete surface and the DNA and protein machines in the cells also have their own complete surfaces. The atoms that make them could also be looked at as having their own surfaces. Even the matter particles that make up the atoms could be considered to have surfaces depending on how you define surface. Looking at things in this way, entities would be made up of surfaces inside of surfaces inside of surfaces, etc.

      I have not seen you give any convincing arguments for the necessity of an infinite surface, an infinite dimension, or infinite light. When I look around the world I see many entities with complete surfaces that are not infinite in size such as the stars in the sky. Man has no way to prove whether the universe is infinite or finite because we are just very small creatures in what we know to be at least a very large universe and have no way to go or even look far enough away to see if there is an end to it or not. If there was a big bang as seems to be man's current established belief, then it is reasonable to believe that it could have expanded only so far since then and would, therefore, be finite.

      Light comes in different frequencies. The frequency in visible light is what gives it its color. The highest frequency that we can see is in the blue/violet color range. Above that is the invisible ultraviolet frequency range. It is what gives you sunburn if you stay out too long with exposed skin on a bright sunny day. The lowest frequency light that man can see is in the red color range. Below that is the invisible infrared range. It is what you feel as heat coming out of a radiant heater. The microwave frequency range is below that. It can make water molecules vibrate to generate internal heat that is used in microwave ovens to cook food. Microwaves are also used in communications to send messages. Radio waves are still lower frequency light waves that are mostly used for communications. Of course, there are many other uses for all these frequency ranges of light. I am sure that my wife could explain permanent waves better than I could and why they really aren't actually permanent, etc. Waving goodbye is, of course, a much too difficult subject to cover without writing many books about it, I'm sure you will agree to that

      When you say, "All real visible entities have a real visible surface.", are you saying that they are all continuously illuminated by light and are, therefore, always visible or just that they will be visible if they are illuminated by light, But may not be visible when light is not present? Does the light illuminate the surfaces itself or is it the radiants that the light sheds that illuminate all the surfaces? You say that light is a nonentity, but you also say that it exists. This is contrary to man's definition of the word nonentity. What is your definition of nonentity? If it exists, it must be composed of something that has some properties. What is it composed of and what are its properties that identify it as light instead of some other nonentity?

      So far, you continue to use your same examples that involve entities that are too far away to closely examine their sizes and shapes and are observed only from certain limited observation angles, etc. and completely ignore and give no response to examples that do allow you to see and observe that a ball is a sphere, a cube is not just a square, and the ball actually travels and takes time to travel from the pitcher to the catcher, etc. This tells me that either you do not desire to share your understanding with others, since I have seen this same pattern in your conversations with others also, or you know that your theory is not valid because it cannot explain these other observations. As an example, even if you see the ball at a distance at the game, if you are sitting in a seat that is centered between the pitcher and the catcher so that the pitcher is on the left side of you and the catcher is on the right side of you, you will clearly see that the ball moves from the pitcher and travels all of the distance from him to the catcher and continues to look to be about the same size during the whole trip, if you are very far from it. This travel does not occur instantly, but takes some time for it to be completed and is, therefore, at a finite speed.

      Your theory needs to be able to explain all that we see and observe in any way, not just a small part of what we see and observe under certain very limited circumstances. If you find a place where it doesn't work, look to see why it doesn't work and how you can modify your theory so that it does work in that respect. If you keep doing that long enough, you will end up with a theory that comes closer and closer to accurately modeling reality. None of man's current theories are completely perfect models of reality, although many would like you to believe that theirs is. There is still so much in the world and so much that can happen in the world that man is currently not even aware of, that it is unrealistic to think that any theory will be able to accurately model all of reality without any errors or omissions, etc. In order to have any hope of getting people to understand and accept some of these things, so that advancement can occur, it is sometimes necessary to use over simplifications, leave out some details that would not be believable to those of a specific technology level, or could not be proven in any way given the current technology level and current beliefs, etc., but that which is provided should work with current understandings at a level that is equal to or greater than current understandings and add some real valuable increase in understanding. Best wishes in that endeavor.

      Sincerely,

      Paul

      Comment added to Carlo Rovelli's paper page.

      To All,

      In looking at this page it seems to me that there is some confusion about information structuring concepts. There are two general categories of true information. They are structural information and abstract information.

      Internal Structural Information is information that is built into and is, therefore, a part of the structure that contains it. It is written into the structure in the form of its construction. An example of this type of information would be the information that is contained within a matter particle. The matter particle contains a sub-energy particle that travels at the speed of light as its basis. A sub-energy particle contains three basic information structures that generate its normal independent operation. First is its current spatial position. Next is its direction of travel from its current position and last is its motion amplitude level that determines how quickly it changes its position. The sub-energy particle only has one independent operation, which is to continually change its position in accordance with the contents of the above mentioned internal informational structures. It can access its current position information and update it to its new location as it changes to a new location. It can read its direction and motion amplitude information to determine where it is to change its position to, but cannot change the contents of those two information structures.

      External Structural Information is information elements that are built into two or more structures and are parts of the structures that contain them. It is also written into those structures in the form of their construction. It contains information elements that are only used or changed during an interaction between two or more structures. In the case of sub-energy particle interactions, this would include the ability to change the direction and/or motion amplitude levels of one or more sub-energy particles during an interaction between them. The particles position information cannot be accessed during an interaction, but changes in their direction and motion amplitude information can cause changes to the particle's future position changes.

      To build a matter particle, you next need to increase the sub-energy particle's motion amplitude level to be greater than the speed of light. This excess speed is transferred to the particle's fourth dimensional motion. This motion is constructed and behaves the same as the particle's basic linear motion at the speed of light. Its motion amplitude information is variable as is its direction of travel during specific types of interactions. Its change of position works the same as in its linear motion. The fourth dimension is very small, so the motion travels a small distance and then interacts with the end of the dimension. This interaction changes its direction information to the opposite direction, but does not change its motion amplitude because motion cannot transfer into or out of the dimensional boundary. The motion then travels to the other side of the dimension and interacts in the same way with the boundary at the dimension's other end. This creates a cyclical back and forth motion. This motion gives the sub-energy particle the frequency and wavelength wave effects that change it into an energy photon. This motion's motion amplitude information can only be changed during an interaction that would either increase or decrease the sub-energy particle's linear motion amplitude or due to a direct motion transfer to or from this fourth dimensional motion to another entity during an interaction. This motion effectively increases the particle's cross section, thus increasing its probability of experiencing interactions and its angular motion at ninety degrees to its direction of travel gives it a dynamic mass effect such that if the fourth dimensional motion amplitude is great enough it can knock an electron out of an atom in what is called the photoelectric effect, etc. If an interaction causes an energy photon's linear motion amplitude to increase, the increase is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion amplitude and if it causes a decrease in its linear motion amplitude motion amplitude is transferred from its fourth dimensional motion amplitude back into its linear motion amplitude to servo its linear motion amplitude to the speed of light. An increase in a photon's fourth dimensional motion amplitude increases its frequency and decreases its wavelength. It also increases its dynamic mass effect. A decrease causes the opposite effects. Note that going from the lower hierarchical level of construction by adding another motion to it increases the number of information structures in the particle's construction and also increases the complexity of the operation of those information structures both internally and in external interactions. This kind of information increase is sometimes called emergent information. The next hierarchical increase in structural information content requires that the energy photon has an adequately high fourth vector motion amplitude and come in contact with an adequate angular motion source. When this happens, some of its fourth vector motion is transferred to its fifth dimensional motion. This motion travels in an inter-dimensional cyclical pattern. First it travels from the fifth dimension to the lower three dimensions in a cyclical rotating pattern from one dimension to the next with a ninety degree overlap between the first and second, the second and third, and the third and first dimensions. This causes the energy photon to take a repetitive enclosed curved three dimensional path. That enclosed path is a matter particle. The great angular motion thus created gives the matter particle its rest mass. This extra motion would cause its linear motion to exceed the speed of light, but the excess motion is transferred to its fourth vector motion amplitude keeping it at the speed of light. All that survives of its introduction into the lower three dimensions is its angular component that generates the enclosed path structure. If the fourth vector wavelength fits properly into the enclosed curved path the extra motion amplitude is transferred back into the fifth vector motion and the inter-dimensional motion transfer cycle is complete. Notice how the addition of the fifth vector motion not only adds more structural information to accommodate the added motion, but its internal structural information for that new hierarchical motion introduction is much more complex than that for the other motion structures. Both the fourth and fifth vector motion structures also require more structural information connected to the addition of two more dimensional structures. This completes the lowest level of hierarchical structure level.

      The next level involves the production of atoms from matter particles and field structures composed of sub-energy particles. This level goes through a much larger hierarchical structural growth from the lowest level hydrogen atom all the way up to the top level of that hierarchical structural level. In this level two of the components of the lowest level (sub-energy particles and matter particles) are combined together. The matter particles provide the main structure of the atom and the sub-energy particles provide the binding structures that allow the matter particles to be held together in the atomic unit. When this happens, new internal and external information usually is produced that is not just the same as that in its components, but new internal information of the atom as a whole is generated that relates to the joining together of its parts in new ways and also in the atoms external interaction information which must also accommodate the new internal structure into its external interaction information structure to allow for new types of interactions, etc.

      Then comes the molecular level, which is hierarchically much more expansive than the atomic level in number of and complexity of its internal and external information structures. This type of hierarchical multilevel expansive structuring ability is only produced by living creatures in the output products of the highest level intelligent creature known, namely man. The intelligence contained in the structures of this world is much greater than that which man can produce, however.

      The other type of information is abstract information. It is information that is contained in a structure that is not used directly by that structure in its normal internal and external existence operations. A good example of this type of information is the information contained in a DNA molecule that abstractly represents or models some other structure such as a particular protein's structure. Again, man is the only known living creature that produces this type of information about the structure of complex devices and stores it in other structures. A good example of this in a man's device is the memory of a computer that contains complex structural designs to build a complex device. Again, man cannot come close to abstractly modeling the structure and manufacture of a man as is contained in a man's DNA molecules.

      To summarize, at the lowest hierarchical structural level both the internal and external information structures are very simple. These get more complex when we: 1. Add new structures that may have existed, but were not used by the lowest level such as another dimension, etc. 2. Add existing components to that new structure like the motion that is added to that new dimension. 3. Addition of new external interaction information structures such as the mechanism that automatically transfers motion between the new dimension and the other original dimensions under certain circumstances. 4. New ways that the complete assembly (energy photon) can interact with other entities, such as the ninety degree angular motion component that is now present for interaction.

      Sincerely,

      Paul

        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...

          Paul,

          We posit some of the same mysteries, issues and questions but I tend to leave nature in the realm of a process we are left with and God in the realm of faith to embody what we can't seem to fathom. Entropy is a natural process which seems to govern the animate and inanimate -- the tiny and the colossal.

          An interesting read.

          Jim Hoover

            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 James,

            Your concept of God is common among those who don't actually believe in the actual existence of God. The general belief is that as science advances all of the things we currently can't fathom will be explained and then there will be no need for a concept of God. The problem with that concept is that there are two possibilities. One is that God exists and created the universe and the other is that God does not exist and the universe came about in some other way. Putting blinders on oneself and only looking at and trying to work for justification of only one of the two possibilities will likely end in false results because they will be founded on the wrong assumptions. Only a balanced approach that honestly looks at and analyzes both possibilities and looks for all the information that can be found that would support both possibilities and also all the information that would be against both possibilities can after full analysis be expected to be able to likely give a truly valid answer to the question. As an example, suppose that God does exist and that he created the universe and everything in it, but suppose that he made it such that it works automatically, so that you find that it appears to you that no God is needed. If God made it for some purpose, such as to create a body for himself and left signs of that purpose hidden in the structure of the universe in such a way that you would not see them unless you were purposely looking for them and also gave explanations of his purpose to certain men who then wrote them down in a book for people to read and get an understanding of his purpose, which included that he made us to become parts of his body which will live eternally in a new universe after this one is destroyed by him when he has all of his body members made, but we must choose to become members in a certain way that he has provided for us to do so, you would likely not read that book because you would think that you have the answer that you desire to have. The result would be that you would spend a lot of time coming to a conclusion that would leave you out of the whole purpose of the universe and the life that can be had after this one. A true scientist looks at and analyzes all of the possibilities and then makes decisions based on all the information available. Even then he always keeps his mind open to new evidence that could possibly change that decision.

            I spent over twenty two years looking for that answer in man's science as that advanced over the years and in other sources all of which together ultimately led me to understandings that go well beyond man's current understandings of how the world works. I then, by what I at that time thought was just by chance, happened to open and read a part of the Christian New Testament scriptures and found to my amazement that it contained information that was not currently known by man in this world. That a book written about two thousand years ago contained such advanced information caused me to decide to read it all and I have since found much more information, some of which I still don't yet completely understand about many different areas of knowledge. I also found that the Old Testament contains similar information. I included a small amount of that information in my paper, but the paper was too short to include very much of that information in it.

            When I first started my quest to determine whether God exists or not, I found it relatively easy to believe in a natural universe because the accepted theory at that time was the steady state theory, which held that the universe has always existed and that stars would eventually burn out and explode and that the dust from that explosion would eventually come back together to form new stars, etc. Evolution was also easy to believe because living creatures were said to be composed of cells that were filled with protoplasm and cytoplasm and some mysterious unknown life force. This sounded simple enough to possibly come about naturally and evolve. As the steady state theory was ultimately disproven and it became evident that the universe had a beginning and that living creatures were made of cells that were actually very small factories that produced very complex structures that are even today beyond man's ability to make, etc., it became evident that the universe could not have created living creatures because it tends to break down such structures instead of making them and since the universe had a beginning, that also fit into the concept that it was created by God. I still did not fully accept the existence of God until I saw the information that was provided in the scriptures about him and the world that he created. Since then I have also come to understand other problems with concepts such as evolution. As an example, If you use a DNA copy error rate and a positive result rate that are great enough to possibly allow the production by evolution of all of the types of living creatures that have ever existed, those rates would cause an exponential increase in evolution due to the population increase of all of the creatures, so that today we should see many major evolutionary changes happening all around us, but we don't.

            You are right that entropy is a natural process and that it governs both animate (living creatures) and inanimate (nonliving structures) and applies to things of all sizes. The main difference between the living and nonliving things is that the nonliving things behave completely according to entropy while the living creatures apply some of the motion (energy) that they use to build very complex molecular machines and thus work contrary to entropy in that respect. The nonliving things don't do this. Of course, living creatures use more motion than they place into the building of these complex structures, so they still can't completely escape entropy. All of the fossil fuels that man is currently using and has used in the past are the remnants of that stored motion that living creatures have produced over a long time. The natural world does not generally build and store such motion. Instead it tends to break down and disperse any such stored motion over time.

            I looked at your paper and found some of the usual attempts to justify the concept that the universe somehow created life. The idea that entropy could drive matter to acquire life-like physical properties ascribes an intelligence to inanimate matter that it does not possess. Inanimate matter can only act in accordance to its built in structural information which means that it behaves in accordance with entropy and tends to average the motion contents of all entities in the system toward the center or average of their motion amplitude range and tends to disperse evenly throughout available space. Larger entities that are more subject to gravity tend to be pulled together by it, etc. There is a long way from matter that is placed in an environment with a lot of motion forming clumps and the generation of complex protein machines and DNA molecules. If that is a natural tendency, why do we not see naturally produced protein molecules and DNA molecules everywhere? The planet Mercury receives a great amount of energy that needs to be dissipated. It should, therefore, by the theory that you support generate a very great amount of life on that planet to help to dissipate all that energy. The same could be said about Venus. If that theory really worked it would be very good because if I made a kettle of chili, every time I warmed it up it would reproduce and automatically make more for me in order to dissipate the applied heat, so I would never need to make more. I might, of course, have to add some dirt or something for it to convert into more chili every so often or something like that. One of the problems with the concept that life would form as a natural process to aid dissipation of energy is that building complex molecular structures is not energy dissipation. It is energy storage. Nonliving matter would tend to dissipate all applied energy, but living creatures would store much of the applied energy into the complex molecular structures that they make. This would actually hinder energy dissipation, not aid it.

            Evolution does not intrinsically increase complexity in living creatures. It would only support successful adaptation to the environment. If the environment were to change so that no creature larger than an ant could survive, we would all die out, but ants would still survive and that would be evolution in action even though it would be supporting less complex living creatures over the more complex ones.

            The earth's environment could support the 7+ billion people on this planet if man would stop burning the fossil fuels and use solar energy to generate needed power. If this was done properly, man would take energy that hits the earth from the sun and needs to be dissipated anyway and use it to produce the motion that is needed and then allow it to dissipate back into space normally. This would also get rid of the pollution problems.

            It took me quite a while to fully accept the evidence that the universe and life were created by God, so I can understand why those who desire a natural answer to the question of the source of the universe and of life would tend to rationalize some way to look at the world in a way that would support that result, but it is evident that entropy works against life which is why all living creatures have machinery to repair the damages that it causes to them. If the big bang actually happened to create the universe, its cause cannot be discerned because all of man's theories break down before getting all the way back to the actual beginning of the expansion. With two possibilities (created by God or by some natural occurrence) and no way to determine which it is, any reasonable person would say that it is a fifty percent chance either way. The only thing that could change that understanding would be if the universe's structure indicates that it was created by an intelligent being or by natural random processes. In that respect its complex multilevel hierarchical structure implies that much intelligence went into its construction, especially into the production of living creatures. To me an attempt to convince people that the thing (entropy) that works to break down and destroy living creatures and the things that they make actually is what works to create life is the ultimate misinformation campaign. Of course, each has the right to have his own delusion if he desires to do so. I just desire to know and understand how things really work too much to continue down that path when it is now so obvious that it is a dead end path.

            I find it interesting that we are coming to the end of a complete cycle of understanding. If you go back into history in the United States, when the country was more Christian oriented, someone with the naturalist philosophy would have been considered either very naïve or foolish. At that time there was little scientific evidence either way. Later scientists bought into that philosophy which gave it much credence in the intellectual world and it got to the point that those who believed in God were considered very naïve or foolish. When I came on the scene, I did find that most Christians that tried to disprove evolution did not understand its concepts, so that led me to tend to agree with the scientists of the time. As time went on and the true complexities of the world and the life in it became more and more known, it became apparent that a natural explanation was not practical. Now I find that some scientists are purposely trying to reinterpret the facts of how things actually work in the world to continue to support the naturalist philosophy when the scientific evidence is actually showing it to be wrong. In addition to that I am now finding some Christians who have gone into scientific fields such as genetics and biology who recognize the problems and are beginning to publically address them. The main good thing that has come out of all of this is that science has greatly advanced in the process of trying to prove it in one direction or the other and in the end God still wins because his works prove him.

            Sincerely,

            Paul

            Dear Paul,

            Thank you very much for such nice discussion...

            I made 9 reply posts for your post, I request you to have a look in the thread on Dynamic Universe model

            Dear Paul

            Some Important parts I am giving here 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 ...

            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,

            The last part of Post. please have look all the posts in my thread...

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

            • [deleted]

            • Post #23

            Dear Declan,

            That is a good question, but it does not mean that God is not the solution as to how the universe and life were created. It would just be the next logical question to ask once you came to the conclusion that he did create them. We know now that the universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, so if God created them it would tell us that he at least was in existence before the creation of them in order to have created them. According to man's current estimate of the beginning time of the creation, he would have to be older than 13.8 billion years. Given that age it would not be too great a stretch to believe that he has always existed. After all, it was not that long ago that scientists thought the universe had always existed, so if that could be believed by man why not believe that God who created it always existed? Of course, we can only know for sure, if he has told us in one way or another. In the Christian Old Testament at Isaiah 57, 15, God says that he inhabits eternity. In The New Testament at I Timothy 1, 17 God is said to be eternal and immortal. Of course these things would only be evidence to you if you believe that God is the source of these scriptures. To a great extent I was convinced that he is, by the information that is contained in them about the structure of the world that we can observe, which goes beyond what man currently understands. Of course, it also contains information about parts of the creation that we can't presently observe, such as the heavens and the hidden framework behind our world that generates the outputs that make up the world that we see and are parts of, etc. As I looked deeper into the scriptures, I found that it contains much information about many other things also that explains how things in the world work, etc. There are many things in the structure of the world that are images of things pertaining to God also. I hope that helps you.

            I looked at your paper and found that although it is very short, it is one of the better ones that I have seen in this contest so far.

            Your zeroth requirement is explained in my paper. It also explains how the wave nature of energy photons works.

            There are multitudes of energy sources present in the universe.

            What is a survivable environment depends on what it is that is to survive in it. As an example, this planet is currently survivable to living creatures that have a limited life time of generally less than 120 years and have built in repair mechanisms to repair the damages caused by entropy interactions, but if you were to consider whether it is survivable to parts of a living creature over very long periods of time, such as billions of years while all of the necessary parts were formed one at a time by chance until they were all formed and then would somehow provide an environment, such that all those parts could somehow come together and form the first living creature, it would not have been stable enough at any given location to allow that to happen because entropy interactions would surely destroy the first parts long before the last ones would be made. In nature the most survivable structures are those that are the closest to the motion amplitude equilibrium point. These are the structures that are created by the one way chemical reactions or are the elements that are in the middle atomic weight range, etc. Building complex molecular structures is like stacking many bricks on top of one another. It does not take much to make them fall and, thus release all of the potential energy that was stored in them. On the other hand if you lay all those bricks side by side flat on the ground they can't fall from there, so that structure is very stable and is, therefore, much more survivable than the other one. If survivability is the important driver then complex structures would never form.

            The natural world does not contain the intelligence to be able to favour anything. It operates in accordance with its built in structural information, which generally operates in only the direction that works toward the averaging of internal motions in all entities involved and the equal dispersion of all entities in space except where controlled by gravity. It is true that this can be modified if external energy is added. Although the addition of external energy can make it possible to make chemical reactions occur in the opposite direction, there is no evidence that the self-assembly of complex structures such as the molecular protein machines, RNA molecules, and DNA molecules, etc. that are needed to operate inside of the cells of living creatures have ever occurred naturally in nature. The problem is not just to get amino acids to join together to make a protein. A certain type of protein that a living cell needs to function contains a chain of amino acids that can be 300 or even as much as 1400 amino acids long. There are about 80 amino acids generally found in nature. Each one comes in a left handed and a right handed variety for a total of 160 possibilities that could be joined together to make a protein. Only about 20 of those are used in living creatures. Each position in the protein chain must contain a specific amino acid type of the twenty. You should begin to see the problem of random protein self-assembly. If you start with a simple protein that contains a chain of 100 amino acids, each position in that chain must contain the right amino acid out of the 160 possibilities. If you put the wrong amino acid into any one of its 100 positions the protein is ruined. If you assemble proteins randomly you would have to make an extremely large number of them to have any likelihood of producing the one that you need. Think about the chance of picking out the right numbered card out of a stack of numbered cards that has 1 X 160 ^100 different numbered cards in it. If you could assemble quintillions of them per second you would not come close to producing that one specific protein in 13 billion years and you would need to produce at least 200 specific types of proteins to build the simplest possible living cell. Living cells can make the right proteins as they are needed because they have already been preprogrammed to do so. The right sequence of amino acids for each of the proteins that the living creature uses is recorded into its DNA. When a certain protein is needed a transfer RNA molecule reads the code from the proper storage place in the DNA and transfers it to a protein building machine, which is itself a protein. This machine reads the code from the RNA molecule and picks and positions the proper amino acid into the next position in the new protein molecule. It would then read the next position code and pick the proper amino acid to place in that position of the new protein. This would be repeated 100 times to complete our basic protein. A cell is essentially a very complex completely automated molecular based protein production process control assembly facility. In addition to that it also performs its normal life functions. In addition to all of this many proteins cannot exist long enough outside of the cell to allow a nuclear magnetic resonance image to be taken of them. This would mean that they would all need to be assembled in a very short time and once produced these proteins would have to be assembled into a living cell in a very short time. Living cells are basically an organic computer controlled device that contains stored information that controls its functioning and built on a molecular size scale. Man cannot come close to making such a complex structure. Can you imagine a completely automated car plant that can move around to find all of the basic materials and energy it needs to build cars and can then process all of them into the needed finished materials, such as plastics and metals, etc. into the form that they need to be in and then cut and shape them all into the right parts and then assemble them together to make cars and at the same time it automatically repairs any failures that develop in it and every so often completely builds another car plant from the materials that it gathers as it moves around. When I began to understand the true complexity of the structure of living creatures it became apparent that it would be ridiculous to consider that it could in any way come about from natural random processes. And the example of the car plant came from a comparison to a single celled creature. If you talk about more complex structures like man, the complexity expands more exponentially. Just think of the cell differentiation problem that would start with a single general purpose cell and as cells would divide they would need to slowly differentiate in many stages into all of the different types of cells in the body with each cell in the right place when it is done. All of this would need to be controlled by all of the possible differentiation forms being stored in the DNA in some way. When each cell divides it would need to know its differentiation position in the body and the proper code to pull out of the DNA to use to make the next cell so it would also have its proper differentiation from it. There is no way to get around the fact that it would take an intelligence much more complex than man's to figure out all of these things and then build it, let alone first constructing the universe they are to live in out of combinations of basic motions and building it up to the hierarchical level that would allow the possibility to create the proteins and other complex molecular structures needed to build living creatures.

            One of the greatest problems with the concept of evolution is that if you select a DNA error rate and a positive result rate that is quick enough to produce all of the different types of living creatures that have ever lived in the time allowed, (about 13 billion years) starting from just the one first creature, evolution increases exponentially along with the increase in the populations of all of the existing living creatures. This means that today with the tremendously large world population of living creatures we should be seeing a great number of evolutionary changes occurring all around us, but we don't.

            Standing wave structures just like all other cyclical motion structures require external structure to generate the interactions that periodically reverse motion direction in all dimensions that participate in the standing wave motion. In my description of the structure of the energy photon I use a standing wave motion that oscillates between the barriers at the ends of a very small dimension. An interaction with the end of that dimension changes the motion's direction information to the opposite direction, but blocks the transfer of motion amplitude to the barrier because the barrier cannot receive motion amplitude input. This creates a one dimensional standing wave structure that operates at 90 degrees to the direction of travel of the energy photon, thus producing its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic variable mass wave effects. To produce the three dimensional wave structure of the matter particle I use a more complex structure that also requires an additional dimension that interfaces with the other dimensions in such a way as to create an inter-dimensional cyclical motion flow. You can find more details in my current and other papers.

            Sincerely,

            Paul

            Once again even though I checked to see if I was still logged in just before I sent the above post, it somehow logged me off and then sent it as anonymous. I usually read over my post after entering it into the window to check it out to see if it is ok. This can take some time. The log off time needs to be changed to a longer time period and a log off message should be sent back to the page before log off occurs to avoid this problem.

            Sincerely,

            Paul

            Your comment to me on your paper's page:

            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 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