Are Mathematical Laws Truly Mindless? by Paul N Butler

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

Hector Daniel Gianni's comment to me on his paper's page:

Dear Paul Butler:

You choose my essay as the best you read till now, this show me that at least mine is readable, clear and understandable for you. I thank you for your opinion.

My essay is radical because left aside the prehistoric and unfunded "belief" of "time" physic existence, which has no scientific prove, in favor of search around of the only thing man knew about "time", it's measuring. Definition and empiric meaning are scientifically proved since centuries ago. It's origin in my essay is just the most probable way of how the "time" born. The only people, among all sciences who need this is theoretical physicists. I don't need this knowledge for nothing at all, I can't construct anything with it because I'm not a physicist, they need it, but I hope for the best of science than most physicists are not in the position you think that possibly they are. I hope to find the right person to convince others of the essay value. You say "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".

I hope your best whishes come true

Héctor

My comment to Hector on his paper's page:

Dear Hector,

It is not that I find that your paper is the most readable, clear, and understandable that caused me to commend your paper because in some ways it is not. It was that you have a better understanding of time than most current scientists have. We live in a motion continuum. Matter, energy photon, and the sub-energy particles that make up field structures are all composed or made up of simple motions or combinations of them. If all of the motions in the world were to suddenly stop, the world would cease to exist. We always live in the current conditions of all of those motions that are continuously changing their positions in space. The past is the conditions that these motions were in, but they have now moved from those positions to where they are now. We cannot go back to the past because those past motion conditions no longer exist, since all of the motions have moved on and changed their positions from those positions to their present conditions. A point in the future is the motion conditions that will exist when all of the motions have moved from where they are now to the new locations in space that they will then be in. We cannot go into some distant point in the future because the motion conditions that will exist then do not yet exist until the motions move from their current positions in space to those new positions. Then those new motion conditions will be the present and if we are still alive we will then be there, but it won't then be in the future, but will be our present. Man's current belief in a space time continuum leads to all kinds of nonsensical concepts. In order for there to be a past and future that one could go to, a complete copy of the universe would have to be made every time any motion in the universe changed its position, so that you could go back or forward to that point in time and be able to experience it completely as it was. Each time a copy was generated due to some motion in the universe changing its position all of the motions in the universe would have to be duplicated, which would require a tremendous amount of new motion that would have to come from somewhere. This would essentially mean continually recreating the complete universe every time any motion changed its position in space. I have never seen anyone logically explain how all of this extra motion would be generated. In addition to this, if you could go into the future, it would mean that all of the copies of the universe from the beginning to the end of the universe would all have to exist simultaneously so that you could leave any one of them and go to any other one of them. This would mean that there would be a copy of you in each one of these copies of the universe that occurred during your life time. How then is it that you seem to be traveling forward from one copy to the next as time goes by only being conscious of the one copy that you consider the present? Why would you not be conscious of all of your copies since they all have to exist simultaneously? What would lock your consciousness into only the specific flow from one copy to the next one that you experience? As you can see the space time continuum concept does not make sense when closely analyzed. Many current scientists believe in this concept of time, however, and that is why your understanding is noteworthy because you have not gotten caught up in that belief.

Theoretical Physicists don't need the time dimension concept either. They just think that they do. It actually causes them many unnecessary problems and interferes with scientific advancement. It may be that many physicists may not be that far off base, but the system that they exist in often requires them to act as if they are in order to get the money that they need to live and do any research that they want to do. In a way this contest is an example. The theme of the contest presupposes that math laws and the processes that generate them in the world are mindless and that they somehow caused conscious living beings to come into existence. It is obvious that those who submit papers are being asked to give a natural explanation of these things, which would usually include some form of evolution advancement from the simple structure of the world to advanced living creatures. Anyone who submits a paper and wants to win or needs to win to get needed money will almost certainly submit a paper along those lines because they understand that their papers will be judged on how closely they meet that expected criteria. The positive difference between FQXI and many other places where papers can be submitted is that papers such as yours and mine that question existing established beliefs would not even be accepted into the system at many of those places. FQXI's policy allows those who don't care if they win or not, but just want to get new information out, to at least get it somewhat out into the public domain where it is possible that it can be seen by someone who can recognize its value.

The problem for those who try to follow the guidelines for the paper is that the world that we live in is really a very complex intelligently designed multilevel hierarchically built structure. The built in structural laws by which it operates, which men model with mathematics, show the intelligence that is behind their creation. In addition to that, it is obvious that the world is a temporary structure that is designed to have an end. It is also made so that it is clear that the first living creature could not have been made by the natural processes of the world. The world would tend to break down such complex machinery as the protein machines that are in the cells of every living creature instead of actually building them, as an example. This means that any attempt to explain life creation by natural processes has to in some way try to portray the world structure to be something different than it actually is or that it operates in some way different than it actually does. Often the concept of quantum uncertainty is used to justify an argument. The problem there is that quantum uncertainty doesn't actually exist either. All of the uncertainty is due to man's current lack of knowledge of the internal motion structure of matter particles and energy photons and the complete lack of knowledge of the existence of sub-energy particles that make up fields and how they function internally and interact with each other. Because of this most of the papers that I have read in this contest are built on or at least contain false concepts. That is one reason that your paper stands out from the crowd. Keep up the good work.

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,

If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C? Generally pair production creates a matter particle and its antimatter particle. These particles would normally either have enough kinetic energy to travel away from their creation point with the antiparticle usually interacting with another matter particle in a very short time resulting in their destruction by conversion into photon energy or if their kinetic energy is low enough they would attract each other and convert to photon energy. How would this develop the complex molecular structure of RNA? Moreover, pair production needs a source of high level motion amplitude such as a gamma ray that has a high enough frequency so that it contains enough motion to make the two particles. What is the source in your concept? It must also come in contact with an angular motion component such as the field structure of an atom near its nucleus. Where would it get that in your example? In nature most pair production in an area where life could exist would just be production of electrons and positrons. Where would the protons and neutrons needed to form atoms come from? RNA molecules are not composed directly of basic matter particles, but are composed of complex molecular components that are linked together by chemical bonds to form the complete RNA molecule. How would you get from the basic matter particles to that much more complex hierarchical structure?

Generally in a recycling universe the big crunch destroys everything created in the previous cycle. How does your theory work in that respect and if things in some way survive from one cycle to the next what is the observational evidence of that? I have not seen any evidence that the universe is infinite. If you have such observational evidence that it is; what is it? The 2.58 x 10^220 is actually a very large number when you consider that it is estimated that there are only about 10^80 elementary matter particles in the universe. This would mean that if each RNA molecule only contained one matter particle, you would still only be able to produce as very small percentage of all of them if you used all of the matter in the universe to do it. Of course, in reality an RNA molecule contains a very large number of matter particles, so you would actually get a lot fewer of them. The 2.58 x 10^220 number that I gave came from a simplified example of a hypothetical simple living creature that contained 200 protein machines that each contained amino acid chains of a length of 100 amino acids. In real living creatures the protein chains can vary from about 66 to 1400 amino acids in their chains. And any living creature contains proteins of more than one size. This would likely be the same for the most basic living creature's structure, since each protein machine has a specific job to perform, which would mean that its needed structure would likely vary in size from another protein that did a different job. If you consider that the mechanism to randomly produce RNA molecules would, therefore, need to produce not only the coding of all of the possible protein variations of proteins with a length of 100 positions in their amino acid chains, but would also have to produce the coding of all of the different variations of all possible proteins of all of the possible sizes of chains, you could see that the total number would be beyond comprehension. In addition to that Each RNA molecule would have to contain the exact coding for all of the 200 protein machines that would be needed to make the first living creature. If it contained less than that, it would require more than one RNA molecule that all together contained the exact right codes and then there would be the added complexity of how they would work together. If they contained more than the 200 codes they would not likely work, but random production would likely produce some of both. This would also greatly increase the total number of RNA molecules that would need to be produced to get the valid one. In real life cells, the codes are stored in DNA molecules. When a protein machine needs to be constructed, a messenger RNA molecule connects to the proper place on the DNA molecule where the code for that protein is stored, with the help of several other molecules, and reads and stores that code in its structure. It then connects to a ribosome, which is a very complex molecular machine composed of variously modified RNA molecules and protein molecules, etc. The ribosome connects to the first codon, which is the three letter code that tells it what amino acid to add next to the new protein chain. A transfer RNA molecule picks up an amino acid and if it sees that it is the one needed by the ribosome it connects to the ribosome and transfers its amino acid to the ribosome, which places it in the new protein chain. The ribosome then reads codon for the next required amino acid from the messenger RNA molecule and the cycle continues until it reads a stop code from the messenger RNA when the new protein machine is complete. I left out many details, but that is the general way it works. If you could get an RNA molecule that actually contained all of the codes for all of the necessary protein machines needed to make a living creature and if you could get that very complex RNA molecule to automatically replicate itself, you would still need to either randomly make a ribosome to build the proteins and some kind of molecule to transfer the code from the RNA molecule to the ribosome and other RNA molecules to acquire amino acids and deliver them to the ribosome to allow it to assemble the protein machines necessary to build the first living creature or the RNA molecule would have to be super complex and do it all by itself, which would make it even much more unlikely that it could be produced randomly by nature. Even if there were a large number of universes, the anthropic principle would say the our world is at least a right model that produces a viable functional world compared to the much greater number that would not be so. I think that you may have intended to say the evolution principal instead, since that is the one that deals with the mutation concept in that way. If you don't include God as the necessary more intelligent being than man, why do you believe that any other being(s) that are more intelligent than man must either exist or at least have existed? From the naturalist point of view, if the universe and the life in it was created by just random chance occurrences, then it could be effectively argued that intelligence is not needed in the universe at all because the randomly constructed universe and the life in it are far greater in scope of size, speed, and complexity than anything that intelligent man can do. All life and the intelligence that goes with it could just be some wasteful entropy structure that will ultimately be eliminated as the random universe advances to operate more efficiently. Our existence could in that way be looked at as holding back the natural progression of advancement of the random universe. Isn't that a pleasant thought? I don't expect to see that line of reasoning given by anybody though because from what I have seen the main reason that the naturalist point of view is so popular is that man would like to think of himself as god or at least that he will attain that status at some time in the future through evolution, so it tends to be a very egotistically motivated argument. I believe that is why even now when it is obvious that the universe and the life in it requires an intelligent source (God) to generate it and make it work properly, so many still try to twist reality to make it look like it doesn't. It is always possible to imagine the possibility of anything that one desires to believe in strong enough even without observational evidence.

I thought you were talking about a 3 dimensional rotation, but was not sure that I was interpreting your paper properly. That is a great improvement over the concept of a point particle that still seems to be the most accepted concept that I have seen. When I talk about the substance of a matter particle, etc. I am talking about an actual thing that has existence of itself. What I have observed is that matter particles and energy photons can be converted into each other, so neither of them is truly conserved. They can both also be converted into basic motions and vice versa and in all interactions when you add up all of the motions contained in the input entities and also their kinetic motions the total motion content of the input particles is always conserved. This makes motion the one basic material from which all other entities are composed. When we talk about shapes such as a sphere or a toroid they can be changed during interactions between things and are not necessarily conserved either. Motion possesses a built in structural operation of change, but shapes don't. You can put a shape in motion, but it is the motion that causes the changes that you see, not the shape itself. When you say matter is condensed by rotations of a sub-matter scale medium, the things that could actually exist are the medium and the motion with a rotational structure. What do you see as the structure of the medium? When you say 3D vortices from shear perturbations, the shear perturbations are the input motions and the vortices are the pattern or structure of the resulting or output motions. You are saying that the matter particles that are produced are composed of motions with structural patterns of vortices. You probably do not realize that you are saying these things because you are used to looking at the shapes, etc. instead of the motions that work or move in such a way as to produce those shapes. When you talk about a sphere, you are actually talking about the 3d rotation of motions in a spherical pattern that is why when I ask you what the sphere is composed of you can't identify any substance. The true substance is the motions themselves. Your concept of a field is a little more difficult to interpret, however. It starts with a spatial zone (area of space), that contains quanta. How would you define the structure of a quanta? These quanta have orientations in space, which may be changeable. Are they? Bound states seem to also apply to the quanta, such that they can be connected or joined together in some way. How does this joining work? Etc. implies that there are other presently unmentioned properties or variables, etc. Are there and if so what are they? Which interact giving transformations, the bound states interact in some way that causes changes in them. How do these interactions work and how are the changes made? You give one example of such interaction and the change generated by it. (Relative motion of whole fields can produce the Lorentz transformation). The Lorentz transformation is a space time concept. A time dimension does not exist, however. We live in a motion continuum. Time is just a relationship between motions and the spatial distances that they travel through. Motions are not all the same. One motion may contain a greater amount or amplitude of motion than another motion. If two motions are on points on the same line and they both leave those points simultaneously traveling in the same direction that is perpendicular to the line and travel toward another line that is parallel to the first line, so that if they both travel to that line they will both travel the same distance and if one motion reaches that second line when the other motion just reaches the halfway point between the lines, then the motion that reaches the line has a motion amplitude that is twice that of the second motion. Any convenient motion amplitude can be selected to be the motion amplitude standard and all other motions can then be compared to that motion amplitude level. Motion can then be measured by its amount or size just like distance in space can be measured by its size or amount. A condition of all the motions in the universe that existed, but no longer exists because motions have now moved to their present locations, is called the past. The conditions of all the motions in the universe that currently exist, is called the present. A condition of all the motions in the universe that does not yet exist, but will exist when motions have moved from where they are to those positions, is called the future. It is not possible to go back into the past because the motion conditions that existed then no longer exist because the motions have moved from those positions to their current positions. You cannot go into the future because the motion conditions that will exist then have not yet left their current positions and traveled to those future positions. We can only live in the present motion conditions because that is all that exists. If there were a time dimension, a whole complete new copy of the universe would have to be made each time any motion in the universe moved to a different position in order to allow someone to travel back or forward to that point in time with those exact motion conditions. This would certainly not work according to Occam's razor or that the universe will always choose the simplest and most direct or efficient way to do things. This unimaginable amount of needless structural waste would be ridiculous. I can understand the desire of people to believe that they could go back into the past or into the future, but I might desire to have a kangaroo with wings that can fly me to exotic places on distant planets, but that desire doesn't make it exist. The time dimension is the same type of thing. The multiverse concept is also in the same category. The universe is large enough as it is. Why clog up all of the actual valid concepts with all of the unnecessary and unreasonable baggage of these types of things that can never be tested or observed or experienced by us in any way even if they were to actually exist, which they don't. The security on my computer prevents me from looking at videos on it. I will try to look at it when I get a chance to use a different computer.

Sincerely,

Paul

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta's comments to me on his paper's page:

Dear Paul

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

Your words..." Comment to your second comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 23:29 GMT

Dear Paul

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

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

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

In your third comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you say about these observations....

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

.........."

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

In your fourth comment:

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

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

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

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

view post as summary

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 00:10 GMT

Dear Paul

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

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

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

In your fifth comment:

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

Good discussion with you sir, thank you.

.......

In your seventh comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

view post as summary

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 00:51 GMT

Dear Paul

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

Your words..."

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

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

In your eighth comment:

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

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

.......

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

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

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

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

.......

In your ninth comment:

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

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

.......

In your tenth comment:

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

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

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

.......

In your eleventh comment:

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

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

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

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

See the CANDLES web pages also for simple language explanations.

My abstract also gives real data...

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

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

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

view post as summary

My comment to Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta

Dear Satyavarapu,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul

My comment on Peter Jackson's paper's page:

Dear Peter,

In your previous comment to me you say "On RNA, I identify a 'mutation' (evolution) not creation mechanism, equivalent to people having to decide if they're spinning clockwise or anti clockwise with Earth when standing exactly on the equator. Both answers may result in that case."

This is a very good example of something that I have found concerning most people in this world and that is that they are extremists. When confronted with an observation, most will look for the most immediately conveniently found answer and accept that as the true answer and tend to reject all other answers. In the above example you say both answers may result and you are right in that observation because it would be likely that any who were standing looking to the north when the sun came up would give one answer and those who were looking south would give the other answer. A true scientist on the other hand, would look for all of the observational information and then give a complete answer based on all of it. First after seeing the sun come up and go down several times he would come to the conclusion that either the sun was going around the earth or the earth was rotating on its axis. To determine which, he would look at the background stars and see that they also seemed to be moving in coordination with the sun's movements. This would mean that either the sun and all of the stars, etc. were revolving around the earth or the earth was rotating on its axis. The logical conclusion would be that since the sun and all of the stars would almost certainly contain much more mass than the earth, the earth must be rotating on its axis. If he then stood facing north when the sun came up he would see the sun come up on his right side. If the sun was considered to be relatively stationary in comparison to the earth during one rotation time, he would come to the conclusion that the earth was rotating clockwise when looked at from his current position or if he were to back up off of the earth and move down until he was above the South Pole. If he then went back to the equator and turned around so he was facing south, when the sun came up it would come up on his left side. From this he would see that the earth was traveling to his left. From this he would come to the conclusion that it was rotating counterclockwise when looked at from his current position or if he were to back up off of the earth and move down until he was above the North Pole. If he then stood facing east, he would see that as he continued to travel around the curve of the earth, he would be traveling down compared to his current position which he would consider to be the top for reference purposes relative to his standing position on the earth with the earth under him. If he then turned to face west he would see that the earth in front of him was coming up over the curve of the earth toward him forcing him to move backwards compared to his initial position. From all of this information put together he could truthfully say that the earth was rotating clockwise and counterclockwise and was traveling up and down and also to the right and to the left depending on the given input parameter conditions. Not to say that there are not any other possible parameter variations or ways of looking at them.

Of course, we do not always have time to analyze all observable details, but when confronted with another possibility than what is currently believed, most people will just deny it and never even check it out to see if it has merits. That reaction is one of the things you have to be prepared for in this world when you try to give a new concept or even a different way of looking at an old one. So when that happens to you, just smile within yourself and think, "That's earthlings for you." Wait a minute that somehow doesn't seem quite acceptable. How about, "That's humons for you." Still could use some tweaking. Maybe, "That's man for you." I may have to consider that a little more yet. Just be glad when you find any of the few who are able and willing to think, regardless of where they are from or who or what they are. For any who can hear it, think of what God has to go through, he has to try to reach and convince all of us of his love for all of us, most of who are not just denying what he is telling us, but are actively trying to prove that he doesn't even exist.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Alexey and Lev,

I read your paper and you bring out several good points in it, such as that science has a blind spot because it has neglected to develop an understanding of the connection between thought and matter, etc. The same type of blind spot exists concerning the connection between the understanding of the universe and the things concerning God. I notice that you like many others think of mathematics as a beautiful thing and that sometimes after math has been designed to model some part of the structure of the universe that development will lead to the development of other math that at the time has no practical use, but later new understandings about the universe can use the new math to model that new understanding of the structure of the universe. It, therefore, seems to predict new understandings about the universe's structure. I always desire to trace such things back to the source that causes them. When I did, I found that it was not the math developing the patterns of understanding about the universe, but the flow of the structural understanding that was built into the structure of the universe itself that allowed it to be followed to previously not understood patterns that exist within it. The math just contained that flow because it was made to be a model of the universe. It was just that man was paying more attention to developing the math's built in flow as a model of the universe than observing the flow that was demonstrated in the observations of the universe itself. The universe is designed in such a way that the things that we can observe work in similar ways to those that we cannot observe. It is also built in such a way that much of what we cannot observe directly is observable once we discover the hidden keys to the methods to do so. As an example, we can only see a small portion of the photon frequency spectrum, but at the proper time when we were ready, we were given the ability to make devices that now allow us to observe the previously withheld information about the universe that had been built into our structure in such a way that it had previously limited us. When I saw these things, I began to look at the universe as something very special in that it looked like it was designed to lead us to understand it over time by giving us such keys that are built into it that work in coordination with the various types of blindness that are built into our structure. It was like slowly giving us keys to open new doors in our cage that allows us to then enter into the next larger and more elaborate room at the proper time when we are ready and need it. When I looked for the source of these things in the universe, I found that its structure starts out very simply with only basic motions, as its base material, which exist and move in a spatial system. These motions are then combined in various ways to build energy photons and matter particles in a hierarchical structure. The hierarchical structures continue to proceed through the atomic level and the molecular level to the large scale combination level that we mostly live in and observe directly. One thing in the universe's structure that did not seem to conform to its complex level of construction was that it could be seen that it was designed to be a temporary structure that was designed to wear down over time and to eventually cease to function. The entropy that causes this to happen also made it impossible for it to have constructed the living creatures within it because it works to destroy and break down such complex high potential energy structures. It became very apparent to me that the universe did not build these complex life structures itself or even the complex hierarchical structures that it is composed of. All of these things ultimately brought me to the conclusion that the universe had to have been constructed by a being external to it, who designed it and us for our benefit in some way to prepare us over time to fulfill some purpose that we were designed to fulfill for him. I found various patterns built into the structure of the world that gave me some concept of his nature and structure, so then I began to look at information that was said by various groups to have been given to man by God. In the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament, I found what I had been looking for. Not only was the forming and structuring of the world described correctly in these 2000 year old books in details that are beyond man's current understandings, but information that I had seen in the universe's structure such as that the invisible things of the world and even things about God himself can be clearly seen by the things that were made, etc., as I had observed in its structure, were all explained also. As I read on, I found that God explained that his purpose for creating this world was to build a body for him to dwell in and he made us to become members of his body. Once he has made all of the body members he needs he will ultimately destroy this world and make a new bigger one without entropy in it that will not end, for us to live in with him without end. It all fits together perfectly. I know I risk being too theological, but it is what I have found and come to understand over many years of research to get to the source understanding of it all. Of course this is just the bare minimum highlights. There is so much more to it all than that, but I usually only share such things with those whom I know are interested, so I don't waste my time and the time of those who have already made up their minds to reject it, but I am always ready and willing to share with any who are interested in understanding.

Sincerely,

Paul