Are Mathematical Laws Truly Mindless? by Paul N Butler

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

Declan's comment to me on his paper's page:

Wow, I think that comment is another essay!

I do not wish to start a Science v's Religion debate.

I do want to dispute a couple of your points though:

You assert there is not enough time for life to have evolved, but there is an enormous amount of material that is all reacting and undergoing change at the same time - thus a massively parallel computer in effect. This multiplies the available time for reactions to take place by a truly enormous number. Also there may be certain fortuitous events (such as certain materials acting as catalyst in reactions) that short-circuit the processes and allow certain reactions to occur much more easily and quickly, given the right conditions.

Also, there is some evidence that has been detected (by Roger Penrose's team a few years ago, I think) of the echoes of previous Big Bangs that occurred before our most recent one. This could indicate that the Universe is much older than originally thought, or even of infinite age (i.e. has always existed).

It depends on your point of view: If one were to say that the Universe IS god then there is no need for it to have been created, and it might have always existed. This might be a good way for Science and Religion to unite in some fashion.

My comment to Declan on his paper's page:

Dear Declan,

I guess I just got carried away. To me, the source of the universe and all things in it is the most important understanding to obtain because everything else expands from that and there is so much to it, so I can go on for a much longer time than I did to explain everything, but for your sake I will try to keep this comment shorter.

I was not talking much about the evolution part of the problem in my previous comment except to point out that, since the DNA error rate and the positive result rate would increase exponentially with the population rate increase, we should be seeing many evolutionary changes all around us now, but it is not happening. Mainly I was talking about the difficulty in naturally producing the first living creature. The problem is that it is estimated that the simplest possible living creature would need to contain about 200 specific protein machines to carry out the minimum life functions of a living creature. In real living creatures these machines can have a chain of 300, 600, or even as much as 1400 amino acids, all of which must have the proper amino acid placed into each of those positions in the chain. I used an example of a protein with a chain of only 100 amino acid positions in it. Given the 160 different amino acids in nature, that would allow about 2.58 X 10^220 possible different proteins that could be built. Out of all of those possibilities you would need to get the 200 that you needed. Since it is estimated that there are only about 10^80 elementary particles in the universe and each protein machine would require a large number of them, you could only make a very small percentage of them if you used all of the universe's matter particles to do it. It is estimated that if you completely filled the universe with protons it would only hold about 10^128 of them and that is still a very small percentage of 10^220. The chances against any random self-assembly of just 1 such protein machine are so great that it could never happen, let alone making 200 of them that way. The massively parallel argument is a good one to start out with, but it only works for the production of the first protein because that one could be formed anywhere in the universe, but after that the other ones would all need to be formed on the same planet and in the same local area of it, so that once they were all formed, all of the machines could somehow be quickly brought together and somehow be brought to life before any of them was destroyed by entropy interactions. The smaller the area, the greater the chance that they could all come together once produced, but the fewer resources would be available limiting the quantity that could be produced in a given time frame. Catalysts facilitate a reaction between chemicals to speed it up, but they don't have the ability to choose the right specific amino acid and place it in a specific position in the protein chain. Even if you could speed up the random production of proteins, it would not help because you could not produce a large enough number of them to likely make the right one if you used all of the matter in the planet to do it.

If any big bangs occurred followed by big crunches as some suppose, everything that had been done to produce protein machines or anything else would be destroyed by the big crunch, so this would not help to produce living creatures. It would only result in repeating the production and then destruction of the same proteins over and over again, so life would never be produced. The problem with an endless universe that always was is that it is subject to entropy and it can be seen that it will ultimately effectively cease to exist or at least cease to operate.

In a sense you may be right in that God has always existed and he took a small part of the motion of which he is composed to make the universe and all that is in it. Therefore, all of the motions in the universe have always been in existence, they have just not always been put together in the current form. Would that be acceptable? That is why the total motion content is the one thing that is always conserved and can't be destroyed. It also explains why God has always been in existence and can't be destroyed.

Sincerely,

Paul

Declan's comment to me on his paper's page:

Paul,

You are assuming that the proteins were built in one go from scratch. No doubt there are countless clever tricks that nature used to generate these structures in the time available. Catalysis is just one such example. There would be quantum leaps in structure creation in the same sort of way that we have big advances in technology that completely revolutionize the world each time they occur. These sorts of developments in living organisms may not occur very often, but when they do, they can have huge ramifications for the development of living creatures and they build upon one another.

Just as an internet search engine can find things very quickly without having to trawl through every web page on the internet every time a search is done, nature no doubt has ways to fast track the process of developing structures that work and persist without having to try every possible combination of atoms.

Regards,

Declan

My comment to Declan:

Dear Declan,

Are you aware of any of these tricks or are you just imagining the possibility of them? Imagining possibilities without a clear workable concept and without any observational evidence of their existence is not really science. It is just your desired belief. I learned a long time ago that if I really wanted to know how things really work I have to stay within the constraints of existing observational information when forming a concept and then if it requires that something exists that has not yet been observed in some way, I must wait until that observation has been made before I accept that concept as valid. As an example, the concept of a catalysis working to enable the production of living creatures does not work because it cannot generate the needed choice mechanism to choose which amino acids need to be added to make a valid protein molecule and the order in which they must be assembled to accomplish that end result. Speeding up a random process with one doesn't help because there isn't enough matter in the universe to make one of each of the possible different protein machines. This means that there would need to be a way for intelligent choices to be made. You are right that man has sometimes gained intelligent understandings that have made great advances in technology, which is an example of what intelligence can accomplish, which would be a good example that God being an intelligent being well beyond man's abilities could easily create living creatures, but the world that existed before the first living creature existed would not contain such intelligence other than from God. Being entropy based, it would work more to break down any complex structures, such as the protein machines, RNA molecules, and DNA molecules, etc. that would be needed to build the first living creature. Some of these protein machines are so delicate that man has not yet been able to keep them from breaking down long enough to take a neutron magnetic resonance image of them ounce they are extracted from a cell. It is not practical to expect the nonliving entropy based world structure to be able to exhibit the intelligence needed to plan organize and build the first living creature, of course, if you can see some actual provable way it can be done naturally, I would like to hear it. I have not been able to see any way it can be done. Generalizations of hoped for mechanisms without any observational evidence will not convince me or anyone else who really wants to know how it actually worked. Other than God, you cannot use examples of what man or other living creatures can do because they were not present at the time of the creation of the first living creature. You can only reasonably use natural processes that either exist today or of which there is reasonable observational evidence did exist at the time of the creation of the first living creature.

Where can I observe those natural fast track ways and how do they work? We all have desires as to how we would like the world to work. When we follow the observational data we often must accept that things don't work in the way that we desire them to work. We all possess imaginations. When we allow the observational information to guide our imaginations it can lead us to new understandings in science. On the other hand, when we allow our imaginations to guide our observations we are likely to come up with new understandings in science fiction. There is a market for that also, when it is clearly labeled as such, but it is an invitation to disaster when it is marketed as true science because it can hold back important advances that can often save people's lives or at least make their lives much better. That is why I always look for good practical ideas not just vague inferences of imagined possibilities. I am sure that I come across to many others as expecting too much of them, but in fact I understand man's faults and limitations, so in most cases I don't hold others to the same standard that I expect of myself, unless I see in them the ability to succeed at that level. In those cases I work harder to see if they are willing to actually achieve what they truly can. I must admit that so far in this world, I have not found many that both have the ability and are willing to put in the work necessary to become fully developed. We all, of course, have our ultimate limitations and must learn to live and work the best that we can within them.

Sincerely,

Paul

Declan Andrew Traill's comment to me on his paper's page:

Paul,

Sure there is a lot to learn that we don't know and possibly cannot ever know about the processes and steps that led to the formation of living creatures on Earth, but the ultimate attribution of the cause without any observational evidence is to put it all down to God. This is just a way to put everything that we don't understand into a single basket and call it God. Throughout history many things were not understood and put down to God, but later sound Scientific reasons were discovered for them. If one is to apply Scientific method to the problem, then we should set out given our understanding of existing Science and assume that there are logical mechanisms to be discovered and then set out to discover them.

Regards,

Declan

My comment to Declan:

Dear Declan,

I realize that there are those who just consider anything that they don't understand and can't observe the evidence of its cause, to be just an unexplainable act of God. At the same time, I have also, especially recently, noticed many who automatically consider such things to be an act of nature. I am not like that because I desire to know the true cause of all things to the greatest degree that I can. If the cause of something is completely unknown and there is no convincing evidence either way, I would withhold judgment either way and just admit that I don't currently have the information to discern the cause. That is much better than to jump to a conclusion either way because that would tend to blind me from any new evidence that would suggest that the choice that I did not choose is actually the cause. It is, therefore, an error to put such things into either the God or nature basket. True science is not limited to the study of nature only or of God only. It is the pursuit of the knowledge and understanding of all things that exist. If God exists and did create the universe and the life that is in it, then that is very important for us to understand because if he in some way communicates to us the reason for the creation and why he created life including us, it could completely alter and enrich our lives in many positive ways. On the other hand, if we ignore his communication to us, it could lead to disaster because we could completely fail to fulfill his purpose for us, which could result in his rejection of us and lead to very bad consequences for us, etc. On the other hand, fulfilling our purpose could result in very good things for us. At the same time, it is important for us to understand how the world works because that can lead to the ability to control things in it in such a way as to make our lives better also. In the long run if you keep your mind open to all of the possibilities you will be able to be on the right side based on all of the currently available observational information. If new observations alter the balance in favor of one position over the other you will be ready to choose whatever the preponderance of the information indicates to be the best choice at that time. Contrary to the expectations of many people science is not as exact as some would like to believe it is. This is because we never have all of the possible observational evidence for us to be sure we interpret it accurately. When you add to that the understanding that people usually bring their desired beliefs of how they want things to be and work into their interpretation of the evidence, it is easy to see why so many false assumptions of the meaning of the observational evidence have occurred over time in science. You are right that many things have been attributed to God and later were found to be just natural functions of the structure of the universe. I am now, however, seeing many things being put down to nature that the preponderance of the evidence suggests would be better to be attributed to God. Interestingly, it has been the advancement of science that has led to this conclusion. A couple of these things are:

1. It is now apparent that the structure of the universe is that of a multilevel hierarchical device or machine that starts out in an abstract form based on simple motions that are combined to form the base level of sub-energy particles that field structures are composed of, energy photons that transfer motions between structures and matter particles that form the body of the structures. These first level structures are joined together to generate the second hierarchical level of atomic structure. The atoms of this level combine together in many ways to produce the third molecular level. The molecules are then combined together in many ways to produce the large scale literal objects that we see and use that make up the fourth hierarchical level of construction. This type of construction of starting with simple parts and combining them together into more complicated subassemblies and then combining the subassemblies together to form larger assemblies and then combining the assemblies together to make a complex structure or machine is exactly the way that intelligent man builds complex structures, such as a car, etc. This is clear evidence that intelligence was behind and directed the creation of the universe. On the other hand, a natural world that was formed by chance happenings would be a much more flat non-structured world because chance equal probability occurrences would tend toward the middle average range and, therefore, would not tend to build up complex highly improbable structures that would continually require the right choices to be made to build them into higher level structures and keep them from collapsing. This would be the case even at the most basic choice level. As an example, cyclical motion structures are required to generate energy photons and matter particles. Generally cyclical motions must travel sequentially in both directions in each dimension that takes part in the cyclical motion. To generate cyclical motions at the very lowest level of construction generally requires that the dimensional system be structured to generate them. Each of the lowest three dimensions is structured the same as the other two dimensions, which would be in accordance with what might be expected from a naturally generated universe, but the fourth and fifth dimensions are each structured differently from the first 3 and also from each other in order to allow for the production of energy photons and matter particles. The fourth dimension is somewhat more complex than the first 3 and the fifth dimension has an even more complex structure than the fourth. This progressive increase in complexity at this level is not something that would be expected to occur by chance, especially since the structural entity crossover points and dimensional size and interfacing, etc. are exactly that needed to allow the production of the energy photons and matter particles. If these were off, the universe would only contain sub-energy particles. Note: I realize that much of the above information is well beyond man's current knowledge level, but I give it for the benefit of all that may be able to understand these things at present and to man when these concepts are later commonly understood. The speed of light is the result of the motion crossover point between the lower three dimensions and the fourth dimension. If there was no fourth dimension, sub-energy particles could travel at any speed and there would not be energy photons. If the fourth dimension exists, but is structured the same as the first three, sub-energy particles would have four dimensions to travel in, but there still would not be any energy photons. It is only when the dimensional structural design is as it is that it allows photons to exist and behave as they do. Similar things could be said about the production of matter particles. Similar things could also be said about how the internal motions of matter particles interact with sub-energy particles to produce the particles' internal and external sub-energy field structures that allow the protons and neutrons to be contained in the center of an atom and also allow the electrons to be bound to their appropriate places within the external field structure, etc. At each hierarchical level there are similar finely balanced structures that would not be generated by random occurrences. Most of the things that I have mentioned here are not what you would commonly find in other material, but many current scientists have noted how universal constants, etc. are balanced just right to allow the world to exist in a way that would allow life to be formed and live. This is why the multiverse concept was developed to try to explain the problem away by saying that if there were billions of universes, it would not be unexpected that one of them would form the way this one did. The problem with that concept is that there is no observational evidence of the existence of a multiverse, so it is just another imaginary thing invented to distract people from where the actual observational evidence leads to.

2. The production of the first living creature is the other area where it is obvious that intelligence was involved. I have already given information that shows that the protein machines that are in all living creatures could not be randomly produced by natural occurrences because of the vast number of possible different proteins that can be made. It requires an intelligence to be able to determine the needed structure that each needed protein would require in order to be able to perform its intended purpose and then to choose the number of amino acids that would be needed and their proper sequencing to produce the needed protein machines to build the living creature and then to actually build the machines. I should also mention that the protein machines are not all just a long single chain of amino acids. Many have various shapes such as spirals and even have small appendages that can be used to grab things, etc. They can be more complex structures than might be believed from just the description of them as chains of amino acids. These extra complexities that give them the ability to do what they do are also signs of an intelligence behind their construction.

I guess I got carried away again, so I will end this. My point is that all of the evidence at present points to intelligence being involved in all aspects of the universe's creation and I have not found any one that can explain these things from a naturalist perspective without falling back on nonspecific generalizations or imaginary inventions that have no observational evidence to support them or by trying to make people believe that well known attributes of the universe, such as entropy work differently than all of the observational evidence indicates that they do, etc.

Sincerely,

Paul

Ronald Racicot's comment to me on his Paper's page:

Dear Paul N. Butler;

Thank you for your thoughts and ideas.

I have to admit that it's difficult for me to fully understand your terminology and how your ideas mesh with current quantum mechanics terminology and theories.

You seem to be suggesting that the internal structure and dynamics of any given quantum particle is completely deterministic and that if one could know the position and relationship of all of the internal building blocks of such a particle, then the results of interactions with other knowable particles would be completely deterministic, predictable and even controllable, perhaps. This is a fascinating idea! Schrodinger's wave equation probability theory could then be replaced with a new deterministic theory.

For the time being, I can't see beyond quantum particle interactions being probabilistic as the wave equation implies.

I look forward to reading more about your findings and ideas.

Ron Racicot

My comment to Ronald on his paper's page:

Dear Ronald,

You are welcome.

Although I tried to stay with current terminology as much as possible, some things, such as the sub-energy particles that make up the structures of fields are generally not currently known by man, so I had to generate a name for them. Many years ago, when particle interaction data showed that matter particles could be changed into energy photons and vice versa; two things became very apparent to me. The first is that if either one can be converted into the other one, they both must be composed of the same basic substance, so that each one would contain everything that was necessary to make the other one. The second is that since an energy photon travels at the speed of light and contains only a dynamic mass effect that increases with an increase in frequency while a matter particle has a large rest mass effect and can effectively stand still, this basic substance had to be somehow structurally stored differently in one compared to the other to generate the difference in their observed actions. The data also showed that they could both be converted to basic linear or angular motions. Since of the three, a basic motion is the simplest structure I came to the conclusion that motion is the basic substance from which they are all composed. This did not seem reasonable at first because we are used to thinking of motion as a property of something else, such as a moving car, etc., but when I looked into motion interactions I saw that although the individual objects that were in motion could be stopped or speeded up, etc.by an interaction, the total amount of motion is always conserved. This means that the motion is an entity in itself and is just joined to other objects, which causes them to move with the motion that is attached to them. Interactions between objects just transferred some of that substance from one object to another one. If motions were just properties of an object and not an existing entity of its own, it would be reasonable to expect that if two equal mass cars each traveled toward the other at 50 miles per hour, when they met their equal and opposite motions would just cancel each other out and they would just both come to a stop when they touched each other. Motions do not cancel each other, however. One may increase while another decreases, but when you add up the total amount it is always conserved. I have since found out that total motion is the only thing that is conserved, with the possible exception of the total number of motions, which may also be conserved, but that is not as easily understandable on the surface.

When I began to look into the structure of simple motions, I found that simple motion particles that travel in some direction at the speed of light or less, but do not have a wave function that operates at ninety degrees from their direction of travel could be what fields are composed of. I called these sub-energy particles because they are at the level of structure that comes below the structure of an energy photon. An energy photon has a linear motion in some direction at the speed of light, but it also contains a cyclical motion that operates at ninety degrees to that linear motion. Cyclical motions generally must travel in one direction for some distance and then must reverse their direction and travel the same amount in the opposite direction and then reverse their direction again and continue this cycle in all dimensions that the cyclical motion takes part in. A reversal of motion can only result from an interaction with some entity. The most obvious way of producing this motion reversal was to consider that the motion that generates the wave function would move back and forth in a very small fourth dimension. It would travel to one end of this dimension and then it would interact with the barrier at the end of the dimension, which would change its direction, but would not change it speed of motion because the barrier could not transfer it. This dimension would be connected to the lower three dimensions in the same way that they are connected to each other with a couple of exceptions. First, motion could not pass between the lower three dimensions to the fourth dimension unless the composite three dimensional speed is greater than the speed of light. If a sub-energy particle receives an increase in its linear motion that would cause it to go faster than the speed of light that excess motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and it then gains the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects that make it become an energy photon. The greater amount of motion that is transferred to the fourth dimension, the higher is the frequency, the shorter is the wavelength, and the greater is the photon's dynamic mass effect. This is because the greater the motion, the faster it can complete a cycle from one end of the fourth dimension to the other and back again, thus increasing its frequency, which means that it will travel a shorter distance in its linear motion direction during its quicker cycle, thus shortening its wavelength, and the greater the motion, the more motion that can be transferred to another object during an interaction, thereby increasing its mass effect. There are other details, but that should give a good basic understanding of how an energy photon works and why they all travel at the same speed of light. A matter particle requires an additional motion in an additional fifth dimension. In the same way that there is a transfer threshold level of the speed of light to enable motion to transfer from the lower three dimensions to the fourth dimension, there is also a similar transfer threshold to allow transfer of motion from the fourth dimension to the fifth dimension, but unlike the automatic transfer that takes place at the speed of light level to the fourth dimension, when an energy photon contains enough energy to transfer to the fifth dimension it must also come in contact with a proper angular motion component to enable the transfer. That is why a gamma ray photon can remain a photon even though it contains enough fourth dimensional motion to make an electron/positron pair (a matter particle and its antimatter particle). If it travels close enough to an atom to receive the necessary angular motion from the atom's field structure it can then be converted, as an example. The fifth dimensional motion interfaces differently with the lower three dimensions, such that it transfers motion to each of those three dimensions in sequence with a ninety degree overlap between the first and second, the second and third, and the third and the first dimensions. The motion transfer to each of the lower three dimensions starts at a zero level and increases to a maximum level and then decreases back to zero over time. This causes the energy photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself and it continues to cycle through this path. The path effectively becomes a matter particle. When the motion travels into the lower three dimensions it would cause the photon in the matter particle to travel faster than the speed of light, so the excess motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and if the fourth dimensional wavelength fits properly in the enclosed path, the proper angular motion component exists to allow the motion to travel back into the fifth dimension and the inter-dimensional motion transfer cycle is complete. The only thing that survives the motion transfer is the angular directional changes to the photon's linear motion path that generates its curved enclosed cyclical path. The great amount of continual angular motion that is generated creates the matter particle's rest mass effect. Since its enclosed path is three dimensional the mass effect is the same in all three dimensions. The motion of the matter particle around its three dimensional path causes it to entrain sub-energy particles to travel through it from an input point on one side to an output point on the other side of the path, but because its motion continues to travel around the path the input and output points of sub-energy flow through the matter particle are also continually changing position on that path. In addition to this the sub-energy flow is modulated from zero to a maximum and back to zero by the fourth dimensional wave function of the particle. This is the matter particle's internal field structure and it generally keeps the particles in the nucleus of the atom from interacting directly with each other. The continual motion of the sub-energy input and output around the particle's enclosed path and the modulation of the sub-energy flow both together generate an external sub-energy field in the form of concentric spheres of sub-energy particles with each sphere varying in sub-energy density from zero to a maximum density and then back to zero. The inner sphere repels the particles in the nucleus and thus contains them in the atomic structure. An electron is attracted to the spheres if it gets close enough to them, which causes it to travel toward the nucleus of the atom. As it travels through the spheres it begins to get attracted to the spheres that are behind it, which it has already traveled through. When the attraction from both directions becomes equal, the electron is in its stable position in the atomic structure. Within each sphere the sub-energy particles travel around the sphere from the input to the sphere to the output of the sphere. This sub-energy flow servos the speed of the electron as it travels around the nucleus. That gives a very basic look at the structure of basic particles. I tried to stay as much as I could with commonly used words, but may not have done it perfectly and some things such as the sub-energy particles are not currently understood to exist by the scientific community, so I had to give them a name to talk about them. I hope it is understandable to you. As I mentioned earlier, my various papers on this site's contests give some more details.

You are pretty close. When two like particles approach each other to an interaction, if their level of linear motion toward each other is low enough the interaction takes place only between their external sub-energy fields. If it is great enough, they pass through their external sub-energy fields and if the motion level is not too great the particles can be joined together to produce a nucleus as their external fields join together into a single field structure with a single inner sphere that holds them together in the nucleus. If the motion level is still greater the particle's internal fields interact with each other. If the motion level is great enough the particle's internal fields are breached and the particle's internal motions can then interact directly. This can result in the destruction of one or both of the original particles. The output results of the interactions are dependent on the conditions of the particle's motions at the point of interaction. Generally, there are a number of ranges of proximity that determine what results can occur and the size of each range compared to the others determines the probability of the occurrence of each outcome. It is not time for me to go into more detail about that yet, however. If a way is devised to observe the particles as they approach each other or the ability to control and sync the particle's internal motions with each other before the interaction is developed, such that it is known what those conditions are at the point of interaction, then the actual outcome of the interaction can be determined or controlled. These things are possible, but these abilities require several advancements that I cannot give. Man must develop these things first. You are right that it is all deterministic. Man just does not yet have the ability to make the observations or to generate the control mechanisms to observe that yet. I have given a model though that gives an explanation of how things work, which is the first step in the process. When the observation and/or control mechanisms are developed, all of the quantum uncertainty will be gone along with all of the gibberish that has been generated in connection to it. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Hector,

I have found some who say that they don't consider time to be an actual physical dimension, but just a mathematical dimension, but if the math model that incorporates that dimension is supposed to model reality, that dimension must model some part of reality. I have not yet found anyone who can explain what that part is in any reasonable way.

I agree that there is much confusion about the concept of a space time continuum. That is why many erroneous beliefs have followed from it, but even if you understand it you can't expect it to yield good workable results.

That is because time does not actually exist as an entity. What actually exists is space and motion, so a space motion continuum is what actually works. Time is just a relationship between them.

Even fields are composed of motions in the same way that energy photons and matter particles are also composed of combinations of motions. Most people think of movement as a property of something, such as a car, but when I looked at interactions of things in motion I found that all the motion contained in the things that interact is conserved. This tells me that motion is an entity of itself because it can transfer from one thing to another during an interaction and, therefore, is not just an attribute or property of the thing that it is in. If two cars crash, they may both come to a stop, so that they no longer are moving relative to each other, but the motion that was in them has just left the cars in other forms, such as heat or light photons, sound waves, and in chemical changes in parts of the cars, etc. All of the motion still exists. Matter particles can be converted into energy photons and energy photons can be converted into simple motions. This means that they all must contain the same basic substance. That basic substance is motion. Energy photons are composed of two basic motions and matter particles are composed of three basic motions. You are right, motion is the true energy. Energy photons are just one form of motions. You have a good understanding of motion. If all motion stopped the visible universe would cease to exist because it is composed of motion. In my comment to Ronald Racicot just above this one, I give a model that describes the compositions of matter particles, energy photons, and the sub-energy particles that make up fields and how they can be changed into each other. It shows how they can all be constructed out of basic motions. In order to make it short enough to not make the comment too big I left out many details, but it should give a good basic idea of how it works. You can read it if you like and give me any input that you have about it.

You are right it is not time that flows it is motion that flows. One thing that is needed is a standard unit of motion amplitude. Motion amplitude would usually be called speed, but speed incorporates time in its meaning. If two objects start to move simultaneously from one line in a direction that is perpendicular to that line and travel toward another line that is parallel to the first line, so that when they reach the second line they will both have traveled the same distance, if one of them reaches the line, but the other one simultaneously has only traveled half way, then the one that reached the line contains twice the motion amplitude compared to the other one. Any convenient motion amplitude level could be selected to be the standard motion amplitude unit of measure that all other motions would be compared to. It would then be possible to compare motions to each other just based on the amount of motion that they contain without any connection to a time scale. Of course the time scale also compares motions to a standard motion, but in a much more complicated way that is not necessary. This would allow motions to be measured by their size or amount in the same way that distance is measured by its size or amount according to a unit of distance. All that really exists in this world that we see are motions that travel through space and the space that they travel through. Time is just a relationship between motions and the distances that they travel through. It allows different sizes of motions traveling through different sizes of space to be compared to one another.

Sincerely,

Paul

Declan Andrew, Traill's comment to me on his paper's page:

Paul,

Surely you have heard of the anthropology principle?

Namely: of course the Universe is constructed in such a way to support intelligent life, otherwise we would not be hear to ponder such a question.

Apart from that I come back to my earlier point: If we consider the Universe and God to be one and the same, then there need not be a creator as such, and of course everything that happens in the Universe is caused by the Universe/God.

This way we can both agree. It is just a semantic argument about whether we call it the Universe or God.

Having said that, any process that occurs in the Universe/God can be described by Science via mechanisms that are known, or are yet to be uncovered.

Regards,

Declan

Correction: anthropology should read Anthropic (auto correct error)

My comment to Declan on his paper's page:

Dear Declan,

The problem with considering the universe to be God is that the intelligence that was required to build the universe would have been needed from the beginning of the universe to even generate energy photons and matter particles, etc. and the universe would not have had any structure at that time that could contain any intelligence. The universe even today does not contain such intelligence. There is no observational evidence that the universe is creating any new universes. Even the most intelligent living being in the universe today, which as far as man here knows to exist is man himself and man is nowhere near intelligent enough to plan and build the universe, so the required intelligence had to come from outside of the universe in order to plan it out and then build it all from base motions successfully. This means that both must exist separately. This does not mean that the scientific method cannot be used to learn things about God or his creation. After all, the scientific discoveries about the complex structure of the universe and the living creatures in it have now made the preponderance of the evidence to be in favor of God's needed existence to explain how it could possibly come about. There are many things we can learn about him from observing the universe that he made. The fact that he could start out with just basic motions and build them up to make the whole universe in all of its complexity shows us that he is worthy to be honored by us and we can learn much about how to do things ourselves by observing how he did these things. The fact that man builds things on the level that he can, in a similar way, does give credence to the concept that we were made in his image. Of course, the image is never as good as the real thing, so we can't start with base motions and build a universe, but we can build small things based on similar principles with the materials that we can work with. The way that the universe is made indicates that God desired for us to know that he built it. As an example, if he had only made it possible to construct the protein machines that are needed to create living creatures or if he had made a mechanism that automatically built the needed proteins in large quantities, so that we would see them laying around everywhere, it might not seem so impossible for them to have somehow come about naturally, but instead he made it possible to make so many different proteins that it would be obvious that they could not have come about naturally. I have found other such indications that he made the world in such a way as to tell us things about him. In the scriptures God tells us that he is a spirit. He tells us that a spirit has not flesh and bones (not made of matter). He also says that those who are led by the Spirit are like the wind. You can hear the sound thereof, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it goes. A good image of this is the sub-energy particles because you cannot see them or tell where they come from or where they go, but you can experience their effects like the push experienced when the like poles of two magnets are pushed toward each other. They also hold all of the matter particles together in the atomic and molecular levels of construction, etc. He says that his son Jesus Christ is the only mediator between him and man and that man is intended to be his body. Energy photons are a good image of the Son because they can transfer motion and information from sub-energy particles to the matter particles which make up the body structure of the universe. This transfer can work the other way also. There are also three major hierarchical structural levels that build the complexity up to the large scale objects that we see. They are the basic particle level, the atomic level and the molecular levels of structure. These three levels are for the most part invisible to us except when very large numbers of atoms or molecules are joined together. God also generally remains invisible to us except when he appears to someone to give a message to man or in the form of works that man cannot do such as in miraculous healings, etc. The longest time that he appeared was when he sent his son Jesus Christ into the world for over thirty three years to have him give us his New Testament or agreement with man during the last three and one half years of that time, which was about two thousand years ago. Since you desire to believe in a naturalistic world construction, you probably do not believe in such things and I did not either until I opened the scriptures and found that it contains scientific information about the structure of the world that is still well beyond man's current level of understanding. This is extraordinary for a book that was written about two thousand years ago, which is very long before man had any idea of the nature of atoms let alone subatomic particles, energy photons, or sub-energy particles or the field structures that they make. So, information has been given to us about God, why he made the universe, and how we figure into all of it, in both the structure of the world and also in his words that he has given to us through man over time. I gave some information from the scriptures about the structure of the world in Genesis at the end of my paper and there are many other things in various places throughout the scriptures that give information about many different things, but there would be no use going through them unless you are interested. If you are interested, I would be happy to give such information.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your agreement with the understanding that the concept that the complex structure of the universe demonstrates a pattern of design and not just what would be expected from random natural occurrences. I have found that as people in this world proceed down a path of search for understanding they tend to gain beliefs some of which are likely to be true and some are also likely to be false because of lack of information or other causes. These beliefs tend to channel their further search patterns into narrower more localized searches that exclude concepts that do not agree with their current beliefs. There is also a pattern of disconnection from real observational information and the buildup of abstract concepts that when all are put together tend to separate people from reality especially in areas where they are in error because irrational abstractions can often be used to justify those beliefs when rational arguments would not work, thus allowing them to continue to believe the false information to be true. It is, therefore, always an uphill battle to get new concepts accepted, especially if they show that previously established beliefs are in some way lacking or false. You are probably right about the numbers because I try to stick to reality in discussions and this may offend those who are willing to just give what they perceive as being expected of them to get high scores or may not like it if reality is contrary to their theory in some way, but to me it is better to find out if your theory is in error so you can work on correcting it than to just have everyone agreeing to overlook each other's errors because that just adds to the confusion. Luckily for me, I am not concerned about the scores, partly because I don't have man's credentials to get more than a $1000 prize and partly because I currently can get by with what I have and don't have any delusions of grandeur to think that what I am giving out will be understood adequately in my time in this world to give me any gain from it while I am here and once I am gone it doesn't matter anyway. My goal or purpose is just to do what I can to make life better for those in the future in this world and to help prepare as many as I can for a positive result in what comes after this world.

I am glad that you consider it possible that the world was created by God. I Spent about twenty two years in about the same situation, but as scientific developments progressed and the complexity of the world and the life that is in it became more and more known, It got to a point that the possibility of a natural creation of it all became so improbable that it would have been ridiculous for me to keep going down that dead end path. I am not sure of what you mean by "having identified a mechanism to allow rather more of consciousness (and even an RNA mutation model!) from hierarchical levels of interactions than yours." Please explain. I have seen concepts of random self-assembly of RNA molecules, but man has been attempting to purposely cause such self-assembly for several years now and the last time I looked has not been successful. If intelligent man cannot do it with purpose and intent, it is hard to believe that it could be done by random occurrences in a world in which entropy actually works to break down such complex structures. Even if such an RNA molecule were to be produced randomly, there would still be the great improbability that it would contain the proper coding to build an actual very simple living creature because it would have to contain all of the information on how to construct the 200 or so exact protein machines needed to make that creature out of a possibility of about 2.58 x 10^220 possible different proteins that could be produced. This plus other improbabilities make natural production of the right RNA molecule so vastly improbable that it would only be wishful thinking to believe that it could happen.

In this basic model I am presenting the motion that is called the speed of light as being generated by a specific motion amplitude level above which the threshold is crossed allowing any further increase in motion amplitude to be transferred to the sub-energy particle's fourth dimensional motion that then generates its wave and dynamic mass effects, thus turning it into an energy photon. This threshold level is generated by the structural relationship between the lower three dimensions and the fourth dimension. If the three dimensional motion amplitude of an energy photon is increased the extra motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and its frequency is increased. If it is decreased motion transfers from its fourth dimensional motion back down into its three dimensional motion to maintain it at the speed of light and the decrease in its fourth dimensional motion lowers its frequency. I mention these things because they are important in explaining the mechanisms of blue and red shifts, etc. I looked at rotation to explain the static mass effect in matter particles, but found that basic rotation is just a two dimensional operation, so the mass effect that it would produce would vary depending on the direction of interaction compared to the axis of rotation.

I read over your paper quickly and I find many things that are said using word patterns that are not explained in common terms, so it will take me some time to look up and get familiar with the more expanded meanings of those terms. I am sure that there are some who work in areas that would expose them to all of these terms who would easily understand all of them and their extended meanings, but I must still decipher them and translate them into those that I am familiar with. It does appear to me though that you propose that matter particles are spherical and rotate. I am not sure, but it looks like you may consider a second rotation that occurs in a different direction/angle than the first. Is that the case? What do you consider a matter particle to be composed of? What do you consider energy photons to be composed of? What do you consider fields to be composed of? Since they can all be changed into one another, how do you explain the mechanism(s) that allows or causes those transformations?

Sincerely,

Paul