Are Mathematical Laws Truly Mindless? by Paul N Butler

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

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

Your comment to me on your paper's page:

Dear Paul,

Your observation...

......... In fact, the increased density of sub-energy particles near large bodies of matter would increase the likelihood of interactions between them and any energy photons that were near the large bodies of matter, which would result in the transfer of some of the energy photons' fourth vector motion to the sub-energy particles involved in the interaction(s). This would lower the frequency of, or red shift, the photons, thus taking away some of their existing fourth vector motion. In addition to this, many of the photons that could be converted to matter particles will not come close enough to such an angular motion source and will be dissipated throughout space and not converted back into matter particles. Even if they all converted, the loss of all of the motion contained in the photons that were too low in motion content to convert would ultimately cause all of the lower elements up to about iron to be fused into higher elements then the existing stars would all burn out and no new stars could be formed. In my paper I explained how during an interaction that transfers motion amplitude from one entity to another the motion generally transfers from the entity with the greater motion amplitude to the one with the smaller amplitude. This is what is happening in the star as it converts the large amount of motion that is freed during the fusion process into energy photons most of which do not possess enough motion to convert back into matter particles. I also mentioned that motion concentrations naturally tend to disperse evenly throughout space. That is what is happening to the energy that is emitted by the stars, which would include most of the photons that do contain enough motion to be converted back into matter particles. These things are a large part of what man calls entropy and they are not reversible unless an even greater amount of motion is applied to cause it to reverse and then that greater amount of motion is lost to entropy, so the end result is always a loss of available useable motion.............

This is not required in Dynamic Universe Model...

Dear Satyavarapu,

Comment to your second comment

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

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

And:

motion concentrations naturally tend to disperse evenly throughout space.

Both of these actions are parts of entropy and can be easily observed in nature. First, if you take an insulated container and place a thin metal divider down the middle of it to separate it into 2 equal sized sections and place thermometers in both sides and then completely close off both sides from each other and from the external environment and then place gas at 100 degrees F into one section and an equal amount of gas at 200 degrees F in the other section, you will notice that the temperature in the hot side of the container will begin to go down while it will go up in the cold side. After some time both sides will be at the same temperature, which will be between the original high and low side temperatures. The metal divider keeps the gas in one side of the container from mixing with the gas in the other side of the container while at the same time allowing motion interactions between the gas on both sides of the container and the metal divider to take place to transfer motion amplitude between the 2 sides in the way that it will naturally transfer. This experiment confirms my first statement above to be the truth. The second statement can be easily confirmed by putting a drop of food color into a glass of still water. As you watch it you will see that the food color gradually mixes itself more and more evenly throughout the water until all of the water is clear if only a small amount of color was used or is tinted the color of the food color if a larger amount was used.

These actions always work to cause some loss of useable motion, so that no large scale interaction, such as the fusion reaction in stars can ever recover all of the motion that went into it for further use because some of it is lost due to the averaging of motions so that it can no longer be used and some of it is dispersed evenly throughout space. I mainly previously covered that some energy photons would not come near any large masses and would not, therefore, be converted back into matter particles even if all that did come close to, such a large mass would be converted, thusly. The part that I didn't cover yet is that although the fusion reaction frees up a lot of motion in the form of radiation, most of the motion that was contained in the original hydrogen atoms would still be contained within the star in the form of the new Helium atom that is generated by the reaction. This atom can also be fused and that process can continue until all of the lower atoms in the star have been converted into middle range atoms, which still contain the bulk of the motion that was in the original hydrogen atoms. Unless your theory also has a way to convert these midrange element atoms back into hydrogen, the motion contained in them would no longer be useful for the star to use in fusion reactions. This would mean that even if all of the radiation that was emitted from the fusion reactions was converted back into hydrogen there would still be much less hydrogen than before because most of the motion contained in the original hydrogen is still locked up in the form of the atoms of the midrange elements that were formed as part of the output from the fusion process. As this new hydrogen was fused much of its motion would be converted into midrange atoms also, so even less hydrogen would be recovered from its radiation. The end result is that you would ultimately have a large amount of midrange atoms in stars, but no more lighter elements that can generate fusion reactions and the stars would burn out.

Sincerely,

Paul

Your third comment to me on your paper's page:

Dear Paul,

Your another part of observation,

......... This universe is a temporary structure that was built by God to be used for the purpose of building a body for himself to live in. He made us to become parts of his body if we choose to join him in the way that he allows us to do so. Once his body members or parts are all made, he will have no more need for this world because his body members will live eternally and he knows all things, so he will not need to make a new body like a man might need to do in order for it to do some new thing that he just figured out how to do. He is also replacing this world with a new larger one that is not subject to entropy and will not end for his body and him to live in, which will be a much better life than can be possible in this world. He will then take all of the motion that he took out of himself to make this world back into himself. Since his motion is much greater than that contained in the stars, etc. of this world, this universe will effectively be burned up in the process along with everything in it. This end of the universe will occur long before the stars all burn out, etc. Only his body members will be saved from that and enter into the new world with him........

Here you brought the God into picture. It is general human tendency to put something as act of God, when the human understanding fails. Science will progress by searching more and more avenues of understanding....

Your fourth comment to me on your paper's page:

Dear Paul,

Another part of your observation....

......... When I work to give people in this world new information, I have found that if it goes too far beyond their currently accepted beliefs, it will be rejected. I, therefore, try to work within man's currently accepted framework of knowledge as much as possible so that there is some possibility that the new information will be accepted. If it is, it will then be possible to progress to the next level, etc. There are times, of course, when man is in a negative progression portion of the advancement cycle, such that very little new advancement growth can occur........

I disagree with you here... It is our duty to tell the people about what is right, of course as much as possible in simple words...

Dear Satyavarapu,

Comment to your third and fourth comments

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

In your third comment:

First the idea that I brought in God to put something as his act when my understanding in some way failed is not applicable because, if you look closely, you will see that nothing in that comment is used in any way to explain the structure of the world. The only connection to the structure of the present world that we live in is that it is a temporary structure meaning that it would naturally effectively come to an end through the long term process of its actions. This would happen with or without God. The rest is some of what I have found in my research about God, which is one of the avenues of understanding that is also valid to advance the progression of science. The understanding of the cause of the universe is the most basic and important scientific question to answer. Everything else expands from that point. It is obvious that there are really only two possible answers to that question. The first is that it was created by a very intelligent and powerful God and the second is that it came about from some natural chance occurrence. At this point enough is known about the extreme complexity of the structure of the universe and the living creatures within it to easily come to the reasonable conclusion that it is a very intelligently designed and built structure that is well beyond chance probabilities of occurrence. When I first began to research how the world works, I found that at that time science was not advanced enough to logically be able to make that decision and most religious people that tried to convince people about God's existence did not know much about the concepts of evolution, etc. The steady state theory of the universe also seemed to be contrary to the concept of God's creation of the universe, so I tended to lean toward the natural science viewpoint. As time went on and scientific advancement showed that the universe had a beginning and began to unravel the true complexity of the universe and especially of living creatures, it became apparent that it could not have been generated by natural chance occurrences. Today I find that many scientists, especially those who work in genetics and associated fields have come to the same conclusion based on the impossibility of generating all of the needed parts to create the first living creature by chance actions. I find now that the scientists that still desire to believe in the natural creation concept are more and more trying to bend very well-known and easily observed scientific facts that work against the natural generation of the endless world and living creatures in it to make them look like they actually work for production of living creatures and an endless universe, etc. Some even try to attribute intelligence to the world that does not actually exist, etc. The information that I gave you about God and his purpose for creating the universe and us is only about what I have found out from my research in that area and mainly applies to his current and future relationships with us and what he says that he will do concerning the universe in the future, etc. It is my answer to the second most important scientific question, which is: Is there a purpose for the creation of the universe and for us in it? From what I have found the answer to that question is of much more importance to us than the first question because, if I am right, the life that we live in this world is only a very small part of what we can have, if we make the right decision. Not only that, being joined to and becoming a part of the one who is able to make this universe, and us, in a loving relationship with him and all other members also in an endless world without entropy, etc. is something I would not want to miss and I also desire that all others learn of this and also not miss it.

In your fourth comment:

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

Sincerely,

Paul

Your fifth comment to me on your paper's page:

Dear Paul,

Another of your observation...

......... The big bang theory is one of those areas that I cannot currently address in detail for this reason. In other cases to properly explain something that man does not currently understand correctly would require giving out information that man is not yet ready to receive because it would be used destructively, etc. That can also not allow me to completely explain the correct answer. Everything must be given out at the proper time that is according to God's will to fulfill his purposes.............

Should not leave that even if it is BIGBANG theory, you should TELL it boldly don't worry...

Your sixth comment to me on your paper's page:

Dear Paul,

Another part please...

...........Comparing the continual formation of stars and galaxies to biological reproduction is a bit of a stretch. When living creatures reproduce, their offspring are either equal in complexity to the parent(s) or grow up to become as complex in structure, etc. If the galaxies were the offspring of the universe they should each grow into a new universe, but they don't. Stars do not generally divide or in some other way reproduce themselves. New stars just coalesce from clouds of gas by gravity until the pressure and temperature is increased by the compaction to the point that fusion begins, etc. The fusion reaction is a normal part of entropy that removes the lower elements by transforming them into higher elements because the atom of the higher element that is created contains less total motion content then the two atoms of the lower source element used to create it. The excess motion that is freed in the interaction is radiated away from the interaction point. This changes the lower elements up to about iron into midrange elements while on the other end the higher elements break down into midrange elements because the elements in the middle contain the least amount of motion for their size structure. Both of these entropy processes radiate the excess motion that is freed up by the motion transfers. On the other hand, living creatures must build the complex structures that make up their offspring through the use of protein building machine(s) that build a specific protein according to a plan that is delivered to it by a messenger RNA molecule. The RNA molecule first copies that plan from a specific part of a DNA molecule. The DNA molecule(s) contains the complete plan information to build a complete new same type living creature written within its structure. Many such protein machines and other structures must be built by the machines contained within the living creature's cell(s) including a complete new copy of the DNA molecule(s) in simple living creatures that reproduce by cell division. In more complex living creatures reproduction is even a much more complicated procedure. Although the living creatures free more motion than they trap into these highly complex molecular structures and, thus, generate an overall increase in entropy, they use much of that motion to build these complex structures and, therefore, operate against entropy in their local environment. The stars normal operation does not do this. If a living creature cannot find enough food to produce the motion that it needs to continue to operate and reproduce, it will move in an attempt to find its needed resources and it generally has sensors of some kind to help it find what it needs. Stars simply consume the available resources and then cease to operate in some way like a fire. When there are no more gas clouds in space that contain enough of the right materials in them to form a star, all star formation will cease........

Good Discussion....

Your seventh comment to me on your paper's page:

Dear Paul,

Another part please...

............ The real universe is not free of body-body collisions. Many collisions occur in a wide range of body-body size ranges from meteor collisions with planets to interactions between galaxies when they intersect that would surely cause many collisions even between stars...........

A stone thrown out into air will fall back to earth. It is because the UGF vector towards earth is high. All these bodies move according to UGF acting on it. Body to Body collisions are different, they happen due to singularities inherent in the model. In Dynamic Universe Model such singularities are not there. They don't collapse.....

Dear Satyavarapu,

Comment to your fifth, sixth, and seventh comments

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

In your fifth comment:

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

In your sixth comment:

Thank you.

In your seventh comment:

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

Sincerely,

Paul

Your eighth comment to me on your paper's page:

Dear Paul

Another Important part please...

......... When you say that the central dense mass of a galaxy is getting dried up, where does that dense mass go? If it just moves out from the center of the galaxy what is the source of the motion that causes it to overcome the great gravity attraction that the central mass would possess that would greatly resist the pulling away of any of the matter contained in that mass?............

Bigbang Physics say it is Blackhole dried up. By definition Blackhole never dries up. It only increases its mass due to accretion. Then the question comes how a Galaxy quenches? It is happening in the universe.

In Dynamic Universe Model, the central Densemass which holds the Galaxy together can dry up. What is dense mass actually? In a Galaxy the distance between stars can vary from say 4 light years to 100 light years or more in bulge and disk areas. But in the central Densemass these inter star distances are less than I light year. This Densemass is not a lump some mass at the center like a Blackhole. It can dry up or in other words, its stars can driftaway due to dynamical forces. See the paper on "Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model" in viXra ...

Your ninth comment to me on your paper's page:

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...

Your tenth comment to me on your paper's page:

Dear Paul,

This is the last part of your discussion

.................This opens up the concept of gravitational null locations where all gravitational forces cancel out leaving no net gravitational force applied to those places. Their locations would also be continually changing. So that is a good insight on your part because gravitational nulls can be useful in some advanced experiments...............

This is a Good idea, but I don't know how to check them and what will be use of such Gravitational null locations, thank you for your blessings once again...

Your eleventh comment to me on your paper's page:

Dear Paul,

Another part pl

............ I do like that you have included information concerning specific real galaxies. I would have liked to have seen a more detailed discussion of the information that you presented about them that would make the information that you provided more intelligible to the average reader by describing how the given information was derived from the red shift values given, etc. .....................

I collected real data of Galaxies, due to length of the paper limitation I did not include, but the reference I gave are papers which give real data.....

Dear Satyavarapu,

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

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

In your eighth comment:

Normally even stars that were less than 1 light year away from each other would tend to hold each other from moving away from the effective center of their mass by gravity. The stars could rotate around that center and, therefore not all come together at that center of mass, but any star that would begin to move away from that center of mass would have more mass in the stars behind it that would pull it back toward the center than stars in front of it that would try to move it away from the center. Once in stable rotation around the center of mass, it would take an outside source of energy (motion) of adequate amplitude to overcome the gravity pull to allow it to escape the gravity pull of the stars in the center of the galaxy area. What kind of dynamical forces are you talking about? I tried to find your paper that you mentioned on vixra, but was unable to find it. I did find a paper of yours titled "Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model and it gave more of an explanation of your theory, but seemed to be missing most of the actual data of the experiment. You have many good understandings, such as the fact that there is no space/time continuum, etc. The biggest problem that I see is the attempt to make the universe an endless time structure by trying to reverse the entropy operation of fusion in stars. To actually accomplish that would not only require capture of all of the energy emitted from the fusion reaction and all of the heavier elements produced by the fusion reaction, it would also require the addition of the extra energy required to force the reverse reaction to occur, much like in chemical reactions. That extra energy source would then be lost for future use and would thus run out at some point in the future also. It is just the nature of entropy to make things run down, such that all interactions cease in the long run.

In your ninth comment:

You are welcome.

In your tenth comment:

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

In your eleventh comment:

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

Sincerely,

Paul

Too all,

The above comment that I posted on Carlo Rovelli's paper's page showed up on it after I sent it, but was somehow removed by the next day when I checked his page again. It was either removed by him, which is within his right to do or was removed due to some software glitch, etc. It seems that currently there is no way that a commenter is notified as to who and why a comment is removed. I believe this should be corrected. I would just put a quick comment on his page to ask him if he had it taken off, but so far he has not answered any of the comments that are posted on his page, even one from a member of FQXI George F. R. Ellis, so I don't think that it would do much good. Since I posted the above comment I would like to add some information to it, so I will just add it as another addition to this comment here on my paper's page for anyone that might be interested.

Sincerely,

Paul

To All,

The fact that the universe contains these types of information structures in its makeup suggests that great intelligence was involved in its construction. As man's understanding of the complexity of the world increases this conclusion only becomes more and more obvious. I have seen that more and more scientists are coming to this conclusion, but many still desire to believe that there is a natural explanation for this. As a result I see many who try to think that the universe is intelligent of itself and thus made itself to be as it is. This is not a practical concept, however, because the structure of a universe that began from a big bang would be too chaotic to allow any intelligence to exist in it for quite a while after its beginning and the intelligently designed hierarchical structures that exist in and are parts of the universe start at the most basic levels of its formation including such basic entities as sub-energy, energy photon, and matter particles that would have of necessity already existed to allow for the production of any universal intelligence structure. To put it another way, intelligently designed hierarchical structures that are parts of the universe would need to have been present before any such universal intelligence could have been created because they would have been needed to build that intelligent structure. I have even seen some say that people in the future figure out how to build the universe and then travel back in time to before its creation to create it. The biggest problem with that concept is how those people would be able to go through the process of acquiring all that information and ability to make a universe before they could have created it in the first place. The most subtle approaches that I have seen are ones that portray the natural structures of the world in a way that makes it look like they favor the production of complex structures like living creatures when it is very apparent that the natural environment actually favors breaking down such structures. This is why living creatures have machinery to repair broken or damaged parts to keep them alive and functioning for a longer time. It took me over twenty two years of research to ultimately come to the conclusion that the universe had to have been created by an intelligent being. When I started, living beings were considered to be composed of cells that contained protoplasm and cytoplasm and some mysterious life force and the universe was thought to be in a steady state where stars would burn out and explode and new stars would then be made from the dust of the explosions, etc. so it was not so hard to believe the natural universe concept then, but now it is seen that the complexities of the structures of the universe could not have been caused by chance happenings and the built in structures work to break down such complex structures as living creatures, etc. It is therefore, evident at this time that a natural production of the universe and of living creatures is not a practical possibility.

Sincerely,

Paul

My comment entered on Daniel Gianni's paper's page:

Dear Daniel,

I have not yet looked at all of the papers in this contest, but your paper is by far the best one that I have seen so far. You are right that there is no existence of a time dimension, etc. and time is just a relationship between a motion and the distance that it travels in comparison to some other motion that travels a specific distance. It is only needed because all motions are not equal in the amount or amplitude of motion that they contain, such that when one motion travels a certain distance another motion that is started simultaneously with it will travel a different distance. A more meaningful and much easier method to compare one motion to another one is to just pick any particular motion's motion amplitude as a unit of measurement of motion amplitude and compare all motions to that unit. This is what is actually being done in that all time units are based on comparisons of a motion to a standard motion, such as the rotational motion of the earth on its axis or the vibration of a certain type of atom under certain specific conditions, etc., but the addition of the concept of time duration passage confuses things, so that man has begun to think of time as a separate existing thing of itself, when in fact it is only a measurement of a relationship between two or more motions.

I have come to realize that all things in the universe that we can observe are composed or made of one or more motions. All matter particles, energy photons, and even the sub-energy particles that make up fields are made up of combinations of basic motions. As a matter particle's linear motion increases toward the speed of light its internal motions change causing size variation, etc. of the matter particle. This internal motion structure of matter particles and energy photons, etc. causes the variable outcomes that are observed and the probabilities of each one occurring during interactions that quantum mechanics attempts to model. Man just does not yet have the ability to observe those motions and, therefore, he cannot yet predict which one of the possible outcomes will be generated by any particular interaction. It is possible to observe them, but man will never get that ability as long as he denies the possibility of acquiring that ability.

If you are interested in any of these things you can look at my current and past papers on this site's contests. Don't feel bad if your concepts are not generally received and applauded by most others because currently accepted scientific beliefs are based on the erroneous concepts of a time dimension and the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, etc. that causes those who have held these positions for a long time to tend to automatically deny the validity of any concept that would say those beliefs are in error and need to be corrected to allow man to develop further. In addition to that, some may see the validity of the argument, but their income and the prestige they have in their position in the scientific structure might be threatened because they depend on the continuation of current beliefs. Don't be discouraged by such things. It only takes one person to see the value of your arguments, who is in a position to convince others or to do an experiment that proves them to be right and things could change for the better. In addition to that I have found that my understandings of how things work in the world have increased in the process of making these papers. I have come to the conclusion that even if no one else gets anything from them I still, gain knowledge from doing them and that is enough for me. I hope that it is the same for you also, or better yet, I hope yours will be recognized for their value.

Sincerely,

Paul

My comment entered on Ronald Racicot's paper's page:

Dear Ronald,

I find it good that you understand that most things that many consider to be random chance happenings because they cannot predict the actual outcome that will occur are often the result of unknown variable structural actions that when involved in interactions with other similar entities can yield one of a certain number of specific outcome results with a specific probability of each outcome being generated by the interaction. I have found that the internal structure of matter particles, energy photons, and the sub-energy particles that make up field structures, contain dynamic motions that yield such variable outcomes. Just knowing this, however, does not make it possible to predict the outcome of an individual interaction because it would be necessary for man to gain the ability to observe these internal motions, in some way, to see what their positions, etc. will be at the interaction point and/or to gain the ability to control them, so that they will be in their desired states for the interaction to yield the desired results, but it can lead to the development of such abilities and is, therefore, an important first step in the right direction. Understanding these things can also clear up many of the erroneous quantum mechanical concepts, so that advancements can better occur because of not needing to carry all of the false conceptual baggage that is currently holding back progress.

I also have found that the universe shows all the signs of having been designed and built by a very intelligent being, such as a multilevel hierarchical structure that at its lowest level is composed of simple motions to build the sub-energy, energy photon, and matter particles, which are then used to build the atomic hierarchical level, which is then used to build the molecular hierarchical level, which is then used to produce the large scale level that we mostly live in. Our construction is, of course, greatly accomplished at the molecular level. It is our structure that has completely convinced me that we could not have been produced by natural processes. I could go into these things further, but I don't want to take up too much of your paper's space, so unless you are interested in more information on these things I will leave it at that for now. You can also get much of this and other information from my various contest papers on this site. If you have any further questions, I would be happy to try to answer them.

I think highly of your ability to discern things that many others cannot, but due to a lack of knowledge of the basic structural components of the universe, you have drawn conclusions, such as that there are probabilistic structures built into the universe that cannot be understood or controlled to the point that actual individual interaction outcomes can be determined and that such supposed structures somehow aided in the construction of living creatures, etc. Such structures do not actually exist, however. When the internal structures of particles, etc. are fully understood, the probabilistic structures disappear and are replaced by structures that have fully explainable outcomes. The problem is just that man has not yet been able to observe these structures, but it is possible to model them using available observational information.

Sincerely,

Paul