Are Mathematical Laws Truly Mindless? by Paul N Butler

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

Paul,

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

Regards,

Declan

My comment to Declan:

Dear Declan,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul

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

Dear Paul N. Butler;

Thank you for your thoughts and ideas.

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

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

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

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

Ron Racicot

My comment to Ronald on his paper's page:

Dear Ronald,

You are welcome.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Hector,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul

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

Paul,

Surely you have heard of the anthropology principle?

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Declan

Correction: anthropology should read Anthropic (auto correct error)

My comment to Declan on his paper's page:

Dear Declan,

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

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Peter,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul

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

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

Dear Paul,

Thank you very much for such nice question. Whatever you are thinking that is NOT a problem in Dynamic Universe Model; is not a problem at all. I am reproducing your full post here with my answers embedded; I did not remove any portion of your nice thinking and questions. Very good study.

Your words..........

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.

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

Reply...................

I am very much thankful to you, I want analysis of this model.....

Your words..........

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

Reply...................

Thank you very much for nice thinking and trying to analyze this model.

As you have nicely mentioned here, matter will be formed from energy only it is not from nothing. No matter will be formed from nothing in Dynamic Universe Model; the energy will change its form from one state to another only. The fusion and fission reactions will happen according to Atomic physics. If there are some good unsolved problems we can try together. Lets discuss ...................

Your words..........

In your theory you say "This is a nonexpanding universe and matter need not be created to keep the density constant". ...............

Reply...................

Yes, matter need not be created. Universe converts energy into matter and matter will be converted to energy in a cycle. The Universe can be expanding or contracting depends on the overall status of the dynamical forces that are moving different bodies in different ways. Each body movement will depend on UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) acting on it at that moment at that position, which changes dynamically......................

Your words..........

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

Reply...................

No no no, not that way. Overall energy will remain same.

Your words..........

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

Reply...................

This is what exactly happens in SUN and Stars, matter will be converted to energy

Your words..........

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

Reply...................

No sir, not that way, the energy balance will be maintained

Your words..........

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

Reply...................

I got this similar doubt initially about 25 years back when I was working out with this model. What I found in my simulations is different. Probably those sets of Simulations were not published.

What I actually found was astounding. That electromagnetic photon was that was radiated out was pulled back into Universe. I checked the case when the radiation was radially out from the center of the Universe. Then also this radiation came back. Then I was satisfied and started telling the world about this model

That is one of the foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model; Ours is closed universe, no engr goes out.

Your words..........

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

Reply...................

No,no,no... Not that way... Dynamic Universe model don't say that way. I hope I cleared all your questions and doubts.....

Your words..........

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

Reply...................

Thank you very much for the nice study of Dynamic Universe Model. Thank you for your time you spend on this model. THANK YOU FOR THE NICE COMPLEMENTS......

I hope I cleared them all YOUR DOUBTS, if you have any further doubts, lets discuss ...

Best regards

=snp.gupta

view post as summary

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 01:44 GMT

Dear Paul,

I also observed this problem of Logging out many times; this feature needs correction by FQXi software group...

Probably we have to communicate them....

Best

=snp.gupta

My comment to Satyavarapu on his paper's page:

Dear Satyavarapu,

I don't think that you understand what I am trying to say to you, so I will try using a different approach. For the most part, fusion does not actually change matter particles into energy photons. In a new star that has not converted much hydrogen into higher elements; the star is mostly composed of hydrogen. A basic hydrogen atom contains one proton and one electron. ...

Dear Satyavarapu,

I don't think that you understand what I am trying to say to you, so I will try using a different approach. For the most part, fusion does not actually change matter particles into energy photons. In a new star that has not converted much hydrogen into higher elements; the star is mostly composed of hydrogen. A basic hydrogen atom contains one proton and one electron. In the star the temperature is high enough to convert the atoms into plasma. Plasma is atoms with the electrons stripped off of them. This means that the star contains free protons and free electrons. The first reaction is that two protons come together to form a nucleus. One of the protons decays into a neutron and a positron and neutrino which are both matter particles are given off as part of the process. This creates a deuterium atom, which is just a hydrogen atom that contains a neutron. Notice that we started off with two matter particles and still have two matter particles. We have just changed from two atoms to one atom. The energy that it takes to bind two particles together into one atom is less than the energy required for the two separate atoms, so some energy is released, but some of it goes into the neutron because it has a greater mass than the input proton had, some goes into the neutrino, which would usually completely leave the star because they do not interact very much and are extremely low in mass, and some would go into the production of the positron, which would interact in a short time with one of the electrons in the plasma and they would both be converted into photon energy (a total of about 1Mev or million electron volts). The only part of the released energy that did not come from the freed up binding energy was the ½Mev that came from the conversion of the electron into photon energy. The next step is that the deuterium atom joins with another proton to form a Helium atom with just 1 neutron. A gamma ray energy photon is also given off because the energy required to bind the single Helium atom together is less than the energy of the separate proton and the deuterium atom combined. This gamma ray contains about 4Mev and comes completely from the savings in binding energy. The next step is for 2 of the above helium atoms to join together to produce a helium atom with 2 neutrons. The 2 extra protons are ejected. The protons carry off most of the freed binding energy about 15 to 20Mev in the form of kinetic energy or their motion. Notice that in the whole process the only matter particles that were converted into energy photons were the 2 electrons for a total of about 1Mev. All of the rest of the energy that was freed was from the lower amount of binding energy that is needed by the larger single atom than was required by the several individual atoms. None of the hydrogen protons are converted into energy photons. The whole fusion reaction to generate a helium atom freed up roughly 60Mev. If just one proton was converted to an energy photon it would free up over 938Mev. You can see that the idea that the hydrogen atoms have been converted into energy photons and the energy photons would then be converted back into hydrogen atoms is completely false. Instead many hydrogen atoms have been combined together into fewer heavier atoms freeing up a small amount of energy in the process because the fewer heavier atoms require less total binding energy than the many more lighter hydrogen atoms required. For the most part, all of the matter is still there in the star it has just been compacted. It actually takes 4 hydrogen atoms (protons) to produce 1 helium atom. 2 of them are needed just as they are in the helium atom and the other 2 are converted into neutrons. The 4 protons contain a total of about 3753Mev. The fusion reaction only freed up about 60MEV. Are you saying that a 60Mev energy photon is somehow converted up in frequency until it is up to 3753Mev and then is converted into 4 protons somehow? This would mean multiplying its energy by about 63 times. That certainly would not be energy conservation. If that were to somehow happen you could get all of the original hydrogen back, but you would still also have the original 4 protons locked up in the helium atom in the star. This would effectively mean that you would have doubled the amount of matter. The problem is that it is not a cycle of changing matter particles to energy photons and then changing the energy photons back into matter particles. You are not seeing that the hydrogen atoms are not really being converted into energy photons. They are just being compacted into heavier atoms and only the savings in the required amount of binding energy is being radiated in energy photons. All of the hydrogen's matter particles are still in the star except for a few electrons. I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

Paul

Peter Jackson's comment to me on his paper's page:

Paul

Wow, that's longer than many essays! I'll try;

"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?

The sphere surface is the plane wavefront of any signal. Imagine a supernove in space. The light travels at c in all directions creating a growing sphere (just one of a packed sequence of them). If it hasn't reached an obsever he hasn't yet seen it!

Now image a rotating 'photon' or pair of charges at any point. The propagation (translation) at 'c' produces the helix we find in Photonics at ALL points on the sphere surface. If the rotational axis does NOT orthogonal to the sphere surface we get elliptical polarity. As the sphere expands the radius of each orbit increases. However; 'c' is LOCAL so although the 'sphere expansion' rate is c (or 2c considering the whole thing) the speed round each local orbital path CANNOT increase so the orbital time increases.

Simple geometry shows this can produces cosmic redshift - WITHOUT requiring acceleration expenasion of the universe!

Back to 'c'. Propagation speed modulated locally by fermion interactions. If ALL fermions re-emit at c then we'll always FIND c locally so NO PROBLEM EXISTS which needs paradoxical mathematical gymnastics to solve!

"....How would this develop the complex molecular structure of RNA?". The 4 dots preceeding that sentence represent a lot of doctrinal assumptions. As in computors, it only takes one tiny original input or design flaw to make EVERYTHING it produces from then on illogical gobbledygook full of inconsistencies, anomalies and paradoxes . That's what's happened. Revert to my 'Discrete Field Model' etc essays 5 years ago onwards and the adjusted input removing all those inconsistencies, anomalies and paradoxes is explained. Any 'shear' perturbation of the condensate produces identiacal 'pairs', with reverse spin orientations (the 'Higgs process'). RNA is at a much larger scale with more complex 'proteins' but the fundamental structure is fractal.

"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?"

The (smaller fractal) galaxy model shows us best. Not quite ALL matter is recycled. Most is re-ionized (solving that one!) o and the old is mixed with the new, i.e the hypervelocity stars already spat out whole on the axis of our own AGN WON'T be re-ionized this time round. Same with the outermost halo matter seen in 'ring' galaxies. i.e. Google Centaurus A. (note also the helical form of the superluminal (collimated) jet outflows) A mass of evidence exists, identified in this paper; http://www.hadronicpress.com/issues/HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf or Academia, or DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603.

Enough for now.

Peter

My comment on Peter's paper's page:

Dear Peter,

The fact that you answered me without resorting to abstract math and used visual examples of your concepts lets me know that you have greater visualization abilities than many in this world at this time. The next thing that I need to know is your current level of structural conceptual understanding.

If you consider a line that extends out from the point of origin of a photon at the supernova and goes through the center of the photon, do you consider the photon's shape to be a rotating sphere traveling out away from the supernova along that line at the speed c, as an object that consists of one or more point objects that travel in an orbital pattern around that line while at the same time traveling at speed c in the direction of the line, or as some other form or shape?

Do you consider the shape or form of the photon to just be the shape that the motions are traveling in and the motions are the real existence or do you consider the photon to have some other substance beyond just the motions that you mention? It looks like you are saying that the photon's size is increasing, so that it takes a longer time to complete one rotation on its axis. Is that the case? If that is the case then that size increase will grow very quickly due to the rapid increase in size of the wave front sphere with distance from the source. I could be wrong, but it would seem that this would result in a very great red shift even at a short distance from the source and in even 1 light year from the source the red shift would be very extreme, much more than is generally ever measured in light from actual stars.

When a photon interacts with an electron in an atom, such that it causes the electron to go to the next higher level in the atom and in the process the photon disappears, what happens to the photon in your understanding? If the electron later drops back down into its normal lower level and in the process a photon is generated, where does the photon come from?

What is the condensate made of and how does it create matter particles when shearing motion is added to it? Is it like the vacuum energy of quantum mechanics or something else? What is a real world example with actual observable data of how the identical pairs (such as 2 electrons) that you mention have actually been produced? Most of man's current data, that I have looked at, only talks about the production of a matter particle and its antiparticle in pair production.

When you say that the fundamental structure of an RNA molecule is fractal, I am assuming that you are talking about the backbone structure of an RNA molecule being the same throughout the molecule and that the same small number of molecular structures are used to generate the stored codes (that contain the pattern and number of amino acids required to build each of the protein machines in the living creature) are also used throughout the molecule, but the important part of the structure, which is the actual coding for the structure of each protein machine is individual for that machine and can vary greatly from that of any of the other codes in its order of and pattern of the codons, etc. It is sort of like saying that a video disk with a movie recorded on it is just a simple disk of plastic with small holes burned in its substrate that are all the same size, etc. and not noticing the great variation of where those holes are positioned that generates the complex code that allows the generation of all of the images that make up the movie. The information is generally not fractal in structure. It is generating and storing the proper valid information of how each of the 200 or more protein machines that are needed to produce a very simple living creature with no errors that is difficult because there are too many possible code combinations that could be produced for the structure of each protein with only 1 of them actually being the valid 1 to ever produce the valid 1 by random self-assembly and the RNA molecule would not only have to get that one code right, but would also then need to do the same for each of the other 199 protein machine codes. If an error is made anywhere in any of those 200 codes, the RNA molecule would not work. Just the number of possible different protein machines that could be built that have an amino acid chain length of 100 amino acids, that could be coded for in the RNA molecule is more than 1 x 10^220. If you count all of those that have all of the other possible chain lengths the total is much greater than that. For comparison to that, it has been estimated that there are about 1 x 10^80 elementary matter particles in the universe. This means that if you could use all of the matter in the universe to try to self-assemble that RNA molecule, you could not produce a large enough portion of all of the possible ones to have any reasonable possibility of producing the one that you needed to use to make the first living creature.

I looked at the paper that you provided the link to and I found the concept to be interesting. It would require the existence of various phenomena elements that have not actually been observed and proven by man, as far as I have seen so far. If we first look at its feasibility to actually produce your desired result of an infinitely recycling galaxy, I do find some apparent problems with the concept. First you say that the new galaxy that is produced during each cycle has a greater mass than the one from the previous cycle. It also looks like the cycle times have slowed down with each cycle. This would be expected to ionize the greater mass contained in each subsequent cycle. It would also be expected that as the accretion process progressed a point would be reached where the remaining matter that had not yet been accreted would not possess the power needed to keep the process going, so that it would die out without fully accreting all of the matter from the previous galaxy. Most of that left over matter would likely be higher elements that could not be fused in stars. It would mostly be located in the accretion zone of the new galaxy and would likely at least initially hinder the accretion of matter from the new galaxy. This would likely only be a temporary problem because the accretion flow would likely move that matter out of its path by interactions with the accreted particles, but it would be likely that some of these accreted particles would be converted into heavier atoms that could not be fused in the process. This heavy matter would likely remain in the plane of the previous galaxy and would then become part of the galaxy of the next cycle. It would mostly be near the center of that galaxy and could interfere with the production of long life stars in that area, which could interfere with the production of the power needed for the new accretion cycle. These types of things could add to the overall increase in the cycle times over many cycle generations. The big problem that I see is that as the cycle time increases over many cycles, it would get to the point that it would be longer than the lifetime of most of the stars in the current galaxy. This would cause a loss of power to the accretion process that would result in a greater portion of the galaxy's matter content not being accreted. All of this unusable matter would continue to build up over many cycles to the point that the amount of accretion that would be produced by a cycle would not be enough to produce a new functional galaxy. The process would then end either in a very big black hole or in a very super supernova type explosion or both, which would then end that galaxy. If it ended in a black hole all of that matter would ultimately be reradiated in the form of gamma radiation according to most of man's current theories. If it ended in the explosion, it would result in much of that matter being converted into higher mass matter even up to and including uranium by the explosion. This matter would then be spread out in space over time and could be taken into and cause problems in other galaxies. After all of the galaxies died out, the remaining matter would ultimately be drawn into black holes and be converted into gamma radiation. Over time this gamma radiation would be red shifted by interactions with sub-energy particles until it all was transformed into sub-energy particles. Over a very long time the sub-energy particles would interact with each other until they all had the same speed in the same direction and all interactions in the universe would cease. That is the ultimate result of entropy. I will stop there for this time, so as not to get concepts scattered too widely.

Sincerely,

Paul