Are Mathematical Laws Truly Mindless? by Paul N Butler

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

Dear Satyavarapu,

What happens in the core or other levels in a star depends mostly on its size and mass. Small stars less than ½ the size of the sun can only fuse hydrogen because they do not have enough mass to generate the pressure and temperature needed to fuse helium. Stars the size of the sun can fuse hydrogen and helium, but can't fuse any larger atoms, as an example. Each time a heavier element is fused in a star it gives off less energy than the fusion of the previous next smaller atom. To say it in a different way, when you fuse helium atoms you get less energy freed up by the fusion process than you would when you fuse hydrogen atoms. You can still get some freed up energy by fusing atoms up to iron. Large stars actually do fuse iron, but they do that just before they explode in a supernova. When they fuse the iron it takes more energy to fuse it than is freed up, so the net effect is to cool the core, etc. When the core cools it cannot resist the pull of gravity, so it collapses. The end result is the supernova explosion. The fusion of iron and the lighter elements can produce elements up to about zinc by various processes. The larger elements are generally considered to be mostly made in the supernova explosions, etc.

When you say "Initial electrons, protons, neutrons and neutrinos formations are sufficient, I don't think 4 proton Helium nucleus needs to formed. I did not work-out full details yet" Are you thinking that you would be able to up shift the frequency of the 60Mev photon high enough to generate all of those particles? If you are, I believe you are wrong in that assumption. First you would not need to produce neutrons or neutrinos because those were not originally present. They were created from some of the binding energy that was freed up as part of the fusion process. To make the 4 protons and 2 electrons to restore the amount of hydrogen to space that was transformed into the helium atom (which would still be in the star) would require that a 60Mev photon would have its frequency up shifted to about 3753Mev or close to 63 times its original frequency. It would likely require a very large mass to make such a large frequency change possible. That large mass would be exerting a great pull on the photon and it would likely pull the photon into itself before it could generate that large a frequency change. If the photon did escape the inward pull, it would then be subjected to the continual pull of the large mass as it traveled away from it and that pull would then down shift the photon's frequency again back to the 60Mev it had at the start. If it was somehow converted into the protons and electrons while its frequency was still up shifted, the matter particles would lose their speed of light motion as part of that process and gain a much larger mass effect than the photon had and would, therefore, then be pulled into the large mass that had upshifted the photon. It would likely be only very large stars or black holes, etc. that would have any chance of producing that large of a frequency upshift, so the new matter particles would either be pulled into the black hole and lost or pulled into the large star and fused along with its other hydrogen. That might make the large star be able to burn longer before it consumed all of its fusion sources, but it would not spread new hydrogen back into space to make new stars. If that really worked, very large stars should be able to attract all of the photons that they emit back into themselves converting them back into protons and electrons on the way back and then continue to burn forever, but it has been established that such very large stars actually have very short lifetimes on the order of 3 Million years compared to a life of about 10 billion years for a star the size of the sun. That is a very good observational indication that it doesn't actually work the way that you desire it to work.

When you say "Good thinking, there can be other ways." What are those other ways?

Most of the heavier elements especially those up near and including uranium are generally not fused in stars as a normal part of their fusion process. Even large stars cannot generate the pressure and temperature needed to produce these heavy atoms. They are mostly produced in supernova explosions, etc. The earth is much too small in mass to generate the pressure and temperature necessary to even fuse hydrogen into helium.

There are two groups of people who I have found usually strongly desire to have the universe to have always existed and to continue to always exist. The first are those who want to believe in the natural origin to the universe and the life that is in it. This is because if they can convince people that the universe always existed it removes the need for a creator of it and if they can convince people that it has been in existence for some extremely long time it makes it easier to try to rationalize that life could have come about from random natural processes, etc. The second are those who have religious beliefs that require an eternal universe because their belief includes such things as reincarnation, etc. that would not work if the universe came to an end, so I can understand the reason for your hope. In the past I leaned toward belief in the naturalist concept, but as more information came to be understood about the complexity of the universe and about its need for a beginning and later the understanding that it was made to be temporary due to entropy, etc. and then the great complexity of the structure of living creatures began to be understood, it was just unreasonable for me to hold onto that belief in the face of all of that evidence that it all had to have been created by a very intelligent being.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Dizhechko,

I read your paper and find it very interesting. It is very appropriate to start your paper with the scripture quotes that you used, especially if you really understand their true meaning and significance. God describes his structure to us as: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. He tells us that he is composed of three parts. About the Father the scriptures say: God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. He is called: the invisible God. After Jesus had been resurrected and he appeared to his disciples they thought he was a spirit, but he said to them: a spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have. The scriptures also say that God created all things by Jesus Christ. The Father is invisible, not made of the matter that our bodies are made of, and is the one who created all things and he used Jesus Christ (his Word) to do it. When you speak, the words that you speak are your output to interact with that which is outside of you. God's Word is his output to interact with that which is external to him. Jesus (the Word) said: I am the way the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the father (God the Spirit) but by me. It also says: there is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus (the Word). Jesus also said: I am the light of the world. God is saying that he only interacts with the external world that he created through his Word. His Word is the mediator between him and that which is external to him (his creation). God says that he made us to be members or parts of his body. The Holy Ghost is the Holy image of God. People can be filled by the Holy Ghost and they then are moved by God to do his will as his body members. Jesus explained that relationship with God in this way: The Son (Jesus) can do nothing of himself, but as he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: Those who receive and believe God's Word as their Lord and Savior become his body members and are adopted sons of God, so these things also apply to all of his sons, so the third part of God is his body. God also said: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. God says that the invisible things about him and even the things concerning his eternal power and God head can be clearly seen by looking at the things that are made by him. This means that we can expect to see images of God recorded in the things that he made. When we look at the most basic structure of the universe, we can see this pattern. At this level there are 3 most basic structures. These are fields, energy photons, and matter particles. The fields are invisible, but they hold everything else together. The energy photons are the mediators between the fields and the matter particles, and the matter particles are the body members that make up the structure of things, so knowing what God tells us about himself can also give us understanding about the creation that he made. Note that he said that the invisible things can be clearly seen by the things that are made. This tells us that even things that we can't observe can be understood because they work in similar ways to the things that we can see. This is a principle that has been observed at all size scales. The second example of an image of God's structure is in the hierarchical structure of the universe. The basic particles can't be seen by man, but the atoms can interact with both the basic level that they are directly composed of and also the large scale level because you can put a large number of atoms together to make a large scale object that can interact with the large scale structures, such as man and those large scale objects make up the main body of the universe. A third example is within the structure of living creatures. There are the very small living creatures that we can't see, such as bacteria. Next there are larger creatures that live off of the very small creatures, but are big enough for us to see, and then there are the large scale living creatures, such as man that make up the main visible body of living creatures. Another example of an image of God's structure in the world is in the structure of man, whom God even mentions in the scriptures is an image of him. Man has a spirit that generates his purposes and intents. These are communicated to his soul, which translates them into thoughts that the body can understand and then sends them to the body. The body then acts according to those thoughts to carry out the purposes and intents of the spirit. Our body is made of flesh and bones (matter). God said that he formed man out of the dust of the earth (matter) and then breathed the breath of life into his nostrils and man became a living soul. The soul, therefore, is part matter (the brain) so it can communicate with the body and part spirit so it can communicate with the spirit, which is not flesh (matter). God says that the body without the spirit is dead, so your body cannot survive without its connection to your spirit through your soul. God's Word is also part spirit, so he can communicate with God and part flesh, so he can communicate with his body members. That is why we cannot communicate directly with God because he says that his thoughts and his ways are higher than ours, so we cannot understand him directly, but must go through the translation by his Word. Now you can see that when Jesus said: I am the light of the world. He is giving information that tells us one of the images of him as the mediator that is in the world. Of course, 2000 years ago when the scriptures were made, people had very little understanding of the composition of light and could only understand what he was saying in terms of the fact that they knew that light allowed them to see other things in the world and thereby brought understanding to them, which is what the mediator does. He transfers information to us about the one who created the universe, but whom we can't directly communicate with.

It appears that you are still at the stage where you think that motions must have something else in existence as a substance to move in like the motion contained in a moving car, etc., so you visualize that space itself has or is some substance that can contain motions that rotate in it to make matter particles. In reality, the purpose of space is to provide positions that motions can be located in and can then move from their current position to the next one as they continually change from one position to the next in the direction that they are traveling in. Motions are existent entities of and in themselves and don't need any external source or support of their motion from outside sources, such as space. Their motion is built into their structure. One problem with the concept of rotation to create matter particles is that basic rotation like the earth on its axis does create a static mass effect due to its angular motion, but that effect is not equal in all directions. As an example if a force was applied to the earth straight down on its north or south axis point, it would be easier to move the earth than if the same force was applied to some point on the earth's surface where it would try to change the direction of the earth's axis of rotation. In order to get a uniform static mass that is the same in all directions you need to have a 3 dimensional cyclical motion pattern. After examining the structure of basic motions I have come to the conclusion that they are existent entities in themselves and only need empty space to be positioned in and move in. The only thing that is actually conserved in interactions is the total amount of motion. The total number of motions could also be conserved, but there is no way that man can currently make the observations that would determine that one way or the other at this time. The problem with motions is that cyclical motions like rotation, etc. require repetitive interactions because a cyclical motion must reverse its direction periodically in each dimension that it takes part in and a motion's direction information can only be changed by an interaction. Without an interaction a basic motion will continue to change its position in the same direction with the same motion amplitude (speed). It can read its current position information and can change it in accordance with its current motion amplitude and directional information, but it can't change its motion amplitude level or directional information. Motion amplitude and direction can only be changed by an interaction. Because energy photons and matter particles both require cyclical motions it takes some thought to come up with a way that they can be built out of simple motions and operate properly, but it can be done. I have given a model of how it can be done in my contest papers on this site. The model that I have given explains the fixed speed of light and both the wave and particle behaviors of energy photons and matter particles. It also explains how an energy photon can be changed into a matter particle and vice versa and how they both can be changed into basic motions and vice versa. The motion structure of fields is also explained. It also explains why an interaction between 2 particles can generate several different possible outcomes and what causes the different probabilities of the occurrence of each outcome. This can be done because it goes to the level of structure below what is currently observable by man in this world. It is the motion interactions that occur at this level that generate the multiple possible outcomes and it is the structure of the interactions that generates the occurrence probability of each outcome. This allows the use of the parts of quantum mechanics that are valid to model these things and at the same time gets rid of all of the useless quantum gibberish that is currently associated with and called a part of quantum mechanics, such as uncertainty principles, the idea that things don't happen until they are observed, quantum entanglement problems, and the lack of understanding of wave/particle duality, etc. I hope that this can help you.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Peter,

First let me say that I am not trying to discredit all of your concepts. It looks like you are at least very close to coming to the conclusion that it is really the motions that are the true existing most basic entities from which all things are made. That is an insight that very few people in this world have attained to. The next step after that is to come to the understanding that since energy photons and matter particles can be broken down into basic linear motions, you have to get an understanding of how they can be built up using only basic linear motions. Since linear motions always travel in a straight line in the absence of an interaction, you must find a way to generate the interactions necessary to generate curved motions, etc. It also looks like you understand that in order for a matter particle to have a static mass effect that is the same in all three dimensions, the angular motions that create this effect must be three dimensional instead of just a two dimensional rotation, as an example. All that you need now is to understand how a three dimensional composite cyclical angular motion can be generated from simple linear motions and you will understand most of the basic concepts needed to explain the structure of matter particles. Energy photons require a simpler back and forth non curved cyclical angular motion to create their frequency, wave length, and dynamic mass effects. Since a matter particle is just an energy photon that contains the additional curved angular motion mentioned above to cause it to travel in a repetitive cyclical enclosed curved path at the speed of light instead of traveling in a straight line at that speed, it also contains the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects similar to that of the energy photon that is contained within it. Field structures are also composed of simple motions that I call sub-energy particles. Once you understand all three of them you can then figure out how they are combined together to make atoms and how they operate or interact together, etc.

These things are much more important to understand than any attempt to try to justify an infinite universe when entropy precludes that possibility. Once you understand that the total amount of motion is the only thing that is truly conserved and, therefore, can't be increased or decreased in the universe, you will begin to see why it is impossible to use the energy that is produced by the fusion of light elements in stars to turn all of the heavier elements that are produced by that fusion back into the light elements that they originally were. That would require total 100 percent conversion efficiency. In actual fact since the fusion process is a normal entropy motion dispersion process, reversing it would not only require the use of all of the originally radiated energy, all of which could not be recovered, but would also require an additional amount of energy to cause the process to run in the direction that is opposite to the normal entropy dispersion process. To put it more directly, it takes more energy to break down the heavier elements that are produced by fusion reactions then the amount of energy that is freed from their atoms binding energy during the fusion process that creates them. Since matter particles are composed of motions you can't just create new ones from nothing because you can't create the motions that they contain from nothing. This would mean that if the galaxy mass were to continue to increase over time it would require the continual introduction of motion into it from outside of it. That would not be practical. That could possibly happen for some time if the matter between the galaxies was slowly taken into the galaxies, but that source of matter would eventually run out. Everybody wants a free lunch, but the universe doesn't serve it. You always have to pay more than you get back from the universe because it is slowly decreasing the motion content of entities that have more and transferring it to those that have less, thus decreasing the total range of motions, while at the same time dispersing all of the motions evenly throughout space. That is what entropy is all about. Because of this the most efficient way to store matter particles in atoms is in the middle of the range of atom sizes. That is why the lightest atoms can give up or free motion through fusion into heavier atoms. Once you get to iron it takes more energy to fuse them into heavier atoms than is freed in the process because you are too near the center most efficient energy storage part of the range. Of course the atoms at the high end of the size scale have the opposite problem because as you go away from the center of the range in that direction it takes more energy to store all of those particles in one atom than it does in the middle range atoms, so the natural entropy reaction for them is to break down into lighter atoms through fission. In either case if you go in the direction that is opposite to the natural energy flow, it requires the addition of all of the energy that had been freed from the fusion or fission reactions plus an additional amount because some of the applied energy is always dissipated and lost in one way or another in the process. I can understand your desire to believe that the universe is never ending because it makes it easier to believe that the tremendous complexity of living creatures could somehow have come about by some natural process if it can be over an infinite amount of time, etc., but entropy makes the world run down over time and that can't be stopped. That is one of the problems with man's current quantum mechanics is that over time many foolish concepts have been added to it that make it look possible to do such things. It is not until you get the understanding of the level of structure that generates the quantum effects that you can sort out the fact from the fiction. If you continue to work on understanding the basic structures of matter particles, energy photons, and sub-energy particles as mentioned above, you will come to understand these things and all of the indeterminate fog will be removed. Of course maybe I am just talking gibberish and you have it all figured out already.

To cover a few things in your response:

1. When you talk about requantizations, I am assuming that you are saying that energy photons interact with matter particles on the way from the emitting star to your eyes or other sensor and are thereby frequency up shifted every so often to restore their frequency to the higher level that we detect. I see a few problems with that concept.

a. During the individual interactions the amount of frequency up shift that a given photon would receive would be variable depending on the amount of energy that the matter particle brought to the interaction and other variables.

b. The interactions would be random so some photons would intersect and interact with many matter particles while others would go all the way from the star to your sensor without any interactions, since the matter particles would not just be sitting in one place, but would be moving around at various velocities.

c. Depending on the direction of interaction, etc. a photon could actually be down shifted instead of up shifted during an interaction.

The end result of all of these things and also other things would be a great variation in sensed frequency from the photons coming from any star, so that you would not see all of them red or blue shifted from normal, etc. as is usually observed.

2. It seems that you consider antimatter particles to just be matter particles that are turned upside down compared to each other. It has been demonstrated that when a matter particle interacts with an antimatter particle, such as an electron with a positron they both turn into energy photons. If one is just the other one upside down, it seems that it would be possible to pass two streams of electrons through opposite fields that would align all of the electrons in one stream in the same alignment with each other and opposite to those in the other stream and then bring the two streams together to cause them to all turn into photons and generate a lot of energy. Moreover, if they are just at opposite rotational directions, it would seem that free electrons would be at random rotational positions compared with other free electrons and we would, therefore, often see them aligned naturally, so that they would be converted into energy photons and there should then be a great shortage of electrons in the universe.

3. Fractal structuring generates similar structures at various size levels. You might be able to use such a system to generate RNA molecules, but the code patterns for the protein machines that would be contained in the RNA molecules can vary greatly for each code pattern of the 200 or so complete codes that would need to be stored in the molecule to allow it to be used to generate the needed protein machines to make the first living creature. It is, therefore, not subject to fractal duplication except that an RNA molecule could possibly be duplicated with the same code that happened to be randomly formed in the first RNA molecule that happened to come about in some way naturally, but since that first molecule would not likely get the valid code patterns in it randomly, duplicating it would not be of much practical use. Fractal duplication would not help much to produce the particular RNA molecule that contained the complete valid code pattern set for all of the machines. It takes intelligence to determine the jobs that each machine needs to do and then to design the machine to do that work and then to build the first Molecule that contains all of the right codes. There is no random short cut due to the extremely large number of possible proteins that could be made, most of which would not produce machines that would work. All indications are that at small scales things can be identical. The fewer parts that are contained in something the easier it is to assemble it in the same way each time. When it comes to matter particles and energy photons, etc. the built in dimensional structuring components generate duplicate entities due to the constants that are built into the dimensional system. There are various servo mechanisms that are built into the structure of entities such as atoms, etc. that control conformation of their parts to basic structural design requirements, thus limiting variability in their operation. It is much easier to have an atom or molecule missing in a crystal, etc. in large scale objects because they are not operationally bond to the degree that the smaller entities are and they contain so many more parts.

4. When looking at the accretions of galaxies what methods do they currently use to determine what the accretions are composed of and the level of their structure, such as plasma and if so what elements are included, whole atoms and if so what elements are included, molecules and if so what complexity level are included, large scale objects and if so what size scale range is included? I ask this because you mentioned that in the milky-way galaxy several whole stars have been accreted. On the other hand, it seems that the thrust of your argument would be that it is all broken down into protons and electrons.

5. My assumptions were based on the information that you supplied that indicated that the mass of the galaxy would increase with each cycle and that the cycle times have been increasing. It is only logical to assume that if the mass increases, it would take a longer time to complete the next accretion in order to accrete that extra mass. It would be reasonable to then extrapolate that increase in mass and cycle times into the future and see where that would lead us, especially since you propose it to be an infinite cycle. It looks like it would work ok until the cycle time became greater than the average life time of the stars in the galaxy. Then the fuel source for the accretion would be used up leaving more and more burned out remnants of stars not accreted at the end of each new cycle. This material would mostly be heavier atoms that could not be fused in the new cycle's stars. It would, however, be drawn into and become parts of those stars, thus adding to their mass. This would mean that the stars in the galaxy would become larger and larger with each new cycle. Large stars fuse more source material much quicker than smaller stars do because they need to be at higher temperatures to balance the pull of gravity on their greater masses. This would use up the available fuel quicker with each cycle. They also have much shorter lifetimes than smaller stars. Stars the size of the sun might last about 10 billion years, but stars about 60 times the size of the sun would burn out in as little as 3 million years. This would mean that the fuel source for the accretion would be depleted much faster as the cycles progressed. At the same time the larger stars usually end their lives in supernovas that generate much heavier elements even including lead and uranium, etc. This would add even more heavy elements to the stars in the next cycle making them burn out sooner. Over a long enough time the accretion process would completely die out because there would not be enough accretion to enable the production of functional stars for the next cycle. There are several assumptions used above, but they are all in line with man's current understanding of the ways that stars function. Supernova explosions don't generally break atoms down into lower elements. The temperatures and pressures created by the explosion tend to condense the matter into higher more heavy elements.

Since your model is based more on realistic structures of matter particles, etc. than the currently believed point object construction it is no wonder that you come out being able to explain things that can't be acceptably explained by the main accepted theory structure. The more that you learn about the detailed structure of the basic particles and how they work together to make larger scale structures the more your theory will be able to explain and the less likely it will be that you will get sidetracked into unworkable concepts. I would not worry too much about uniting relativity and SR, and quantum mechanics, etc. because they contain some truth and some false information. As you progress you will see the good parts of them and they will then fit together. At the same time you will also be able to see the false parts of them and be able to not get caught up in following their dead ends. It will come naturally as you gain in understanding of how things really work. Occam's razor or the concept that the simplest answer is usually right is good to remember, especially when you hear people talking about multiverses, 20 or 30 extra dimensions, or traveling forward or backward in time, etc. Sometimes a few things must be added to get things to work, but it is best to add only what is necessary to accomplish that. Continue the good work. Sorry I wasn't paying attention to how big this was getting. I hope it is not too much.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Satyavarapu,

It sounds good to discuss these things in the last week of the month, except that in about a week I need to start to work on another project and that will likely take up much of my time, so it might take me some time to get back to you each time.

I believe that some gravitational frequency shifting has been observed, but it works both ways, so when a photon approaches a large star the frequency would shift up, but when it later began to go away from the star it would be shifted down again and I believe that the up shift would not be enough to produce all of those matter particles.

I will wait for your contact then.

Does Hindu philosophy give any information about what God's purpose was for creating the universe and if that purpose includes man in any way?

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Dizhechko,

You are wise to understand that you are not worthy to preach the Word of God because you have also sinned. We are all in that condition, which is why God had his Son Jesus Christ (the Word of God) live a sinless life as a man in this world and then offer himself up to die for us, so that we could receive him as our Lord and Savior and ask God to forgive our sins in his name and have our sins forgiven. Once we then receive and understand his Word and love him, he promises to come into us and live in us, which converts our spirits to do his will. Then he promises that God the Father (God the Spirit) will also love us and come into us and raise up our mortal bodies to do his will. Once this is accomplished, God the Father shows his Son what he is doing and the Son tells us and we then do God's will, which includes preaching the Gospel to others, so they can also be saved and joined to him as his body members. It is then actually God preaching the Gospel through us, so our worthiness is no longer of any importance. Like everything else there are more details, but that is the general overall way it works. In my paper I covered one place in the scriptures where God talks about the creation of the world at the beginning of Genesis. I will repeat that part here: Although the heaven is mentioned here to show that the creation includes both it and the earth, the words that follow concern only the earth. At that time, even though the earth was already created in the past tense, it says that it was void and without form. This means that the earth had the function of containing things that have forms or shapes, but it was empty. This describes an empty spatial system. He then says that darkness was upon the face of the deep. This means that the earth contained something called the deep, which has a face or surface. Next God says that his Spirit moved upon the face of the waters. This makes it clear that the deep is composed of what God calls waters and that his Spirit moved upon its surface. This signifies his first addition of motion into the earth. This motion would generate sub-energy particles in the universe, which God refers to here as the earth. Next God says let there be light and there was light. This tells us that the first motion that was inputted into the world was not in the form of light because that still needed to be done later here. Most who read this part only look at the surface and are amazed that God could bring light into existence by just speaking the words, but if we look a little deeper we can see that he is giving us scientific information that would not have been understandable to those who first heard it over two thousand years ago, but should be clear to us now. When you speak, you output motion that is in the form of waves of air called sound waves. This is a perfect way to say that God added motion to some of the sub-energy particles, that he had previously created when he moved upon the face of the waters, to make them go faster than the speed of light so it would be transferred to their fourth dimensional motions to create the wave functions that made those sub-energy particles turn into light photons. Next God divided the light from the darkness. This is a good description of adding more motion to some of the light photons with the proper angular motion component to cause motion to be transferred to their fifth dimensional motion and change them into matter particles which become dark because their light photons are trapped in the cyclically closed curved paths of the matter particles. Much more information is given in both the Old and New Testaments, which all leads me to conclude that the universe was not created by chance, but by God. Notice that it was God the Father (The Spirit of God) who inputted the motion into the world that created the sub-energy field particles that are an image of him. It was God's word who inputted the motions that created the light (energy photons) that created the image of him. Then it says that God (all three parts of him) inputted the motion that created the matter particles that are an image of his body. This would signify the condition of his body members when they are filled with the Holy Ghost and have God the Son and God the Father living in them and are, therefore, complete members of his body. That is all that I had room to put into my paper, but it continues in the scriptures from there. God separates that first input of motions from the next part by the end of the first day. Next God (his Word) said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament heaven. At this point the waters that he is talking about are the same ones that the motions for the basic particles had been inputted into. These waters are a hidden part of the earth's creation that we cannot see or observe. The motions that are put into these waters generate the basic particles as their outputs into the spatial system that we exist in. They make up us and everything else that exists in that spatial system. God divided those waters into two parts by placing the firmament in the middle so that there are waters beneath the firmament and other waters that are above it. The firmament is a part of the earth that God later in the fourth day places the sun, the moon the stars, etc. in and he calls it heaven. It is the earth's heaven. This is not the heaven that God mentioned that he created at the beginning of the chapter. It is a part of the earth, so all that we can see as the universe is actually just the earth. That is then the end of the second day. In the third time division or day God gathered the waters under the firmament together and made the solid land and the liquid seas. This looks like the time that the planets, such as the earth were made. He then made the plants. God does not tell us what he did with the waters above the firmament. I think I know, but I am not sure and if I am right it is something that it is not yet time for man to know about, so I won't go into that any more now. In the fourth day God puts the things in the firmament as I mentioned earlier. In the fifth day he made the water creatures and the birds. In the sixth day he made the other land creatures and then made man in his image. There are other places where God tells us about the behind the scenes structures that we cannot observe that generate the world that we live in as its output. One book that contains quite a lot of detail is the book of Ezekiel and another one is the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ. There are many other places also that give some additional information. God made the world, so he knows how everything will happen in it. He tells us many things that will happen in the future in the scriptures. Since it was written about two thousand years ago some of those things have already happened now, but some still will happen in the future. God did not make this world to be endless because it is made as a place for him to use to make a body for him to live in. We can become parts of his body. Once he has made all of the parts of his body, he will take all of the motion that he originally took out of himself to use to make this world back into himself, which will destroy this world. He will then make a new larger and better permanent world without entropy, so it can exist without end for him and his body members to live in together without end. I think that will be much better than living in this world where things keep breaking down including our present bodies over time.

Mathematical formulas are another form of words. Everything that can be expressed in a formula can also be expressed in other words and vice versa. Both are parts of man's abstract language structure. I can write 1+1=2 or one plus one equals two and they both mean the same thing. God used his Word to create the whole universe. Anything that we put out of ourselves to interact with the world outside of us is a form of a word. If you are outside of your house and you see the mail man coming up to your house and you put out your open hand for him to place your mail into it, you are telling him to give you your mail directly instead of putting it in your mail box just as surely as if you spoke the words to tell him to do that. When the mail man approaches your house with your mail in his hand, he is telling you that he has your mail without even saying a spoken word. All actions are forms of words. It used to be that if you told a computer to print something for you it would come out in the form of words on paper, but now it could be in the form of some object printed on a 3D printer, which is just another form of a word or output from the computer. I read your essay and it is good that you see that motion is the basis of all things. You still believe that a motion must exist in something else, which is why you want to make space be a substance that motion can move in. The next step is to understand that motions can exist by themselves in empty space. They do not need to move in some other object. All of the other objects are themselves made up of motions. God took part of his motions to use to make this universe. God exists without end, so the motions that he is made of also exist without end or to say it in more scientific terms motions are always conserved. They are the only things in the universe that are truly conserved. All you need to make a universe is the empty spatial system with positions in it for the motions to be in and to continuously move from one position to the next in the direction that they are traveling in at the speed that they are going in and the actual motions that do those things. Space does not need to be a substance. It just needs to have a lot of empty positions in it to hold a lot of motions. The motions are the substance. It is good that you see that cyclical motions are needed to make things like matter particles and energy photons, etc. The problem is to figure out how to make them because basic motions always travel in straight lines. A cyclical motion generally requires periodic reversal of the direction of motion in all of the dimensions that participate in the cyclical motion. Motions can't change their direction of travel themselves, however. Their direction can only be changed by an interaction. This means that the key to generating the directional changes that are needed to generate the cyclical motions required by energy photons and matter particles, etc. is to find a way to generate periodic motion directional changes. I give examples of how this can be done in my contest papers on this site. The structural points of motions are not infinitely small, but they are very small. Each motion contains a certain strength or amount of motion that I call its motion amplitude. It is what causes one motion to move faster than another one. This motion amplitude can vary from zero to an amount that generates the amount of motion that is called the speed of light. The motion amplitude contained in a motion can be changed, but only during an interaction. I notice that you use a spatial pressure to cause the curved motion that produces the static mass effect of matter particles. It would seem to me that if that pressure is the same throughout space like air pressure is on earth, it would not cause the curved motion because it would be pressing equally on all sides of the motion, which would result a in net pressure of zero because the pressure on one side of the motion would be offset by the equal pressure on the opposite side. I may not be understanding how that pressure is applied, etc., however. What would cause that pressure and how would it work? If space is some kind of substance that transmits motions, then the next question would be what is that substance? That could add another undefined existent entity into the structure of the universe. In my theory, space is just space and motions are just motions. I only add a small fourth dimension to generate cyclical motion that generates the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of energy photons and matter particles and a fifth dimension to generates the cyclical motion that generates the three dimensional curved motion of the matter particles. Note, the curved motion that generates the static mass effect of matter particles must be three dimensional instead of just a rotation, which is two dimensional, in order to produce a mass effect that is the same in all three dimensions. Both of those dimensions just provide spatial positions for motions to move and interact in. Everything can be defined in terms that are familiar and commonly understood. I may have just missed it, but I did not see much about how energy photons work in your theory. Please explain to me how they work in your theory in terms of the motions that they are composed of.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Dizhechko,

God says: No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, (Jesus Christ, the Word) which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Just before Jesus died on the cross he told his disciples that he would not leave them alone, but would send them another comforter (the Holy Ghost) and he said to them: At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. After God made Adam in his image, he took a rib out of him and made Eve who is the image of man. If doing this is part of the image of God making the universe and man in it, it looks like he may have taken his motions out of a place in his bosom and placed his son (the Word) in that place that he had evacuated his motions out of and then used the Word to make the universe in him including us, using some of those motions that he had taken out of that area to add back in to make the sub-energy, energy photons, and matter particles, etc. in our universe. I have not seen enough evidence in the scriptures yet to say that I am sure things happened that way, but what I have seen so far agrees with that possibility. If that is the case then that space is in God and the universe including us are in him and in his Word and we are made of motions that were part of him, but since he evacuated himself from that space in him and then used motions that were part of him, but had been removed from himself to make these things we cannot say that we are joined to him as parts of him at this time. That joining is to take place between him and his body members in the new world that comes after this one ends. God may be infinite, but if the universe was made in a fixed area within him, this universe would have to be finite. I have not seen anything one way or the other about how that will be in the world to come. I have come to the conclusion over a long period of time that all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding come from God, not from man or from nature. I have had too many times that I desired to know some specific thing or how something in the world actually works and have worked for many long hours trying to figure it out and not being able to do so and then have the answer just come into me when I am not even thinking about it. This tells me that it was not my work, but was given to me. Since God is the source of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, I believe that it is all given to me or to anyone else by God. God says that he gives gifts to men that differ according to his grace or favour. He will give one gift to one and a different gift to another according to his will. Even Jesus (the Word of God) said the Son can do nothing of himself. If he can't, then the rest of us who are much less than him certainly can't either. Beliefs, such as, that one man is smarter than another is just a device invented by men to make people believe that they are either better or worse than others, so that they can take advantage of others in some way and are of no real importance. You are right that we see in part. I don't claim to know everything. I mentioned one thing above that I don't have enough information about to say that I can consider it to be the way that it looks to be for sure. I do try to give people the answers that they need to the best of my knowledge, because God tells us that as we receive, we are expected to give, so I do as much as I can. It is true that when you read the scriptures the first time, you will only be able to understand that which your earthly mind can understand, but Jesus said: If you continue in my word, you are my disciples indeed and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Each time you read it the knowledge that you have received in past readings allows you to understand more, so the key to getting understanding is to continue in the Word. You are right that God has placed information about him and the world that he made, in that world or nature to help us to come to and understand him and his works. God tells us that his Word is more sure and that anything that man might think or say that is contrary to his Word is not true. Yes that is a problem that man can have, which is to look at the world and see something and then misapply it to something that it does not actually apply to or to apply it in the wrong way because of lack of knowledge. A lot depends on a person's individual experiences or lack of them. As an example, I see many people who believe that the static mass effect of a matter particle is caused by rotation like the rotation of the earth on its axis. If that person had taken a bicycle wheel and mounted it on a shaft, so that he could hold onto the shaft on one side of the wheel with one hand and hold onto the shaft on the other side of the wheel with the other hand and then did that and had someone spin the wheel, he would experience that he could move the shaft and wheel up, down, forward, backward, left, or right and it would feel the same whether the wheel was spinning or not. If he tried to move it in any way that would change the direction of its axis of rotation, however, he would feel a greater resistance to that change when the wheel was spinning than when it was not spinning. After that experience he would not likely come to the conclusion that rotation would produce a static mass effect in matter particles that would be the same in interactions from all directions. He would come to understand that the motion would have to be three dimensional so that no matter what direction that the interaction came from it would try to change the three dimensional complex motion axis structure, thus giving the same static mass effect in all interactions. This is something that can be observed in nature, but not all people experience it directly. Of course, there is another way to get that understanding, which is to get that information from someone else who has done that, which is why we need to give to others those things that God has given us to see and understand.

To let me get a better understanding of your theory let me ask some questions. It seems to me that you equate space and matter as being the same thing. Is that true? If yes, is matter/space composed or made of motion in a vortex pattern like in a tornado, etc.? In addition to that does matter/space also consist of other motion that in some way exerts pressure on the vortex motion of the matter to cause it to continue to travel in that curved path rather than to just travel in a straight line like a motion would usually travel in? If it does, is that other motion that exerts the pressure also considered to be a part of that piece of matter/space or is it something else? What is the source of the power that continually causes that motion to continue to exert that pressure on the vortex motion? It would seem to me that if space does not exist except as matter, each matter particle would be of some size and if another particle also existed it would either have to be directly connected to the first particle or it would be completely separate from it with no space in between it and the other particle. As an example, If a large number of matter vortex particles were connected together to form a man and another group of particles were connected to form another man, if the two men had no direct contact with each other, they would be completely isolated from each other with no possible contact with each other because there would be no space between them to travel through to reach each other. Each one's space would be completely filled by the one man and would not extend beyond him. Is that true or is there some way around that? How can a man look around him and see what looks like empty space between him and some other object made of matter/space? The answers to some of these questions may be obvious depending on the answers to others, but I include them in case the answer is different than I expect it to be. What is the corpuscle that you mention made of and how does it work? I will stop there for now because I will need answers to those questions to understand what I should ask next.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Satyavarapu,

I am not sure what you are asking for. Everything that I have sent to you is in both my and your paper's pages. You should be able to find it there.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich's comment to me on his paper's page:

Dear Paul!

I am an independent researcher. The existence of God is not the subject of my research. The subject of my research are the formulas derived on the basis of previously conducted experiments and finding links between them, thus to get a unified theory.

You correctly me have understood, "that you equate space and matter as being the same thing. Is that true? If yes, is matter/space of the composed or made of motion in a vortex pattern like in a tornado, etc.?"

This is the principle of identity of space and matter. It came up with not I, and Descartes 400 years ago together with the "is matter/space of the composed or made of motion in a vortex pattern like in a tornado, etc.?"

I added that movement in a straight line is curvilinear motion on a circle of infinitely large radius. Thus, all movements are circular or oscillatory, in General, periodic.

We have to think here not about geometrical space, and the physical space created by moving matter, which is initially completely transparent and we have not felt otherwise as a space. The question arises: - does the nature of rectangular bricks of matter, of which can be folded completely dense space? It is obvious that these bricks no in nature. Remains to think that in space there are holes that it tries to fill, to rule out their existence. However, the formation of new holes and the movement continues endlessly.

To avoid formation of holes, Descartes suggested the existence of an infinitely divisible medium - the ether, which fills all the gaps and makes the space without holes. I would argue that ether is not necessary. The space is continuously moving and continuously continuously fills the resulting hole. There is the eternal movement, based on the equivalence of emptiness and movement. Thus, there is a New Cartesian Physic, in which space is completely tight because it is in constant motion. However, the absolute density of space is one feature. According to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which I changed to the principle of definiteness of points of space to allocate an infinitely small point it must exert an infinitely large momentum, i.e., it can no be done. If we take the point a little more, the magnitude of the impulse will decrease and it can be set in motion. Thanks to this feature the space of possible electromagnetic waves.

You say: "As an example, If a large number of vortex matter particles were connected together to form a man and another group of particles were connected to form another man, if the two men had no direct contact with each other, they would be completely isolated from each other with no possible contact with each other because there would be no space between them to travel through to reach each other."

That's just included in the theme of my essay. The visible surface of the human body are not its border. Related space go beyond this visible surface of the human body and affects both other people and objects.

Paul, you well understand, you have a good essay, so you ask good questions.

All the best, Dizhechko Boris

My comment to Dizhechko:

Dear Dizhechko,

I am also an independent researcher. The general subject of my research is how the world began and how it works, so God does enter into my area of research along with many other areas. I can understand that most people tend to work in more narrow research areas. The advantage of doing so is that one can gain more in depth understanding about that one smaller area. The disadvantage is that one loses the view of the overall picture that can allow more overall understanding of the whole system. It takes both types to gain the full in depth understandings in all of the local areas of research and to then join all of them together to make a complete in depth understanding of the whole structure. I tend to see patterns in things around me that most others miss and can then follow those patterns to new understandings of the systems that generate them. That ability works best when working on the larger structural scale of things instead of a narrow area because the patterns are richer there and often flow through and connect many of the narrow areas when fully understood. I mainly tried to answer your comments about God. I try to help others who express thoughts or questions about an area that I have worked in and understanding God is the most important area in existence, but I don't have to cover that area if you are not interested.

If space has a boundary(s), it cannot be infinite. This is the case whether it is a boundary that exists at the limit of its current expansion into the void or if it is just small bubbles of the void that exist somehow in or around matter particles, etc. To be completely infinite it would have to completely fill the void and the void would have to be infinite. If the universe is not truly infinite, it would not be likely that an infinite circle could be constructed except as a bounded infinity, which is different than an absolute infinity. If it is infinite, it would likely just extend out in all directions infinitely and have no geometric form or shape to it. This would mean that a motion could just continue on in a straight line without end and never need to have its motion curve. That is what motions do by themselves. They only curve as the result of interactions with something. The same thing applies to oscillatory motions. They need to have periodic interactions to change their direction of travel to generate the cycle. Most motions that man works with are not over long enough distances that any spatial curvature would exist. Especially the extremely small distances associated with the structure of matter particles. So far, all of man's observations that I have seen indicate a flat non curved space even at very large scales.

If emptiness equals movement, what is the form or pattern of the movement of empty space compared to the vortex motion of matter that exists within its space? The angular motion of the vortex would generate a static mass effect in an interaction between it and any other vortex that was rotating in the same direction, but if the top end of one vortex interacted with the bottom end of another one they would both be traveling in the same direction at the same speed and would, therefore, not experience the same angular motion against angular motion mass effect that a side to side interaction would produce. If the interaction was between the side of one vortex with the side of the other vortex, but one vortex was rotated one hundred and eighty degrees from the other one, so that what was the bottom of it was now at its top, when their surfaces met they would both be traveling in the same direction and that would also produce a different mass effect during the interaction. In interaction observations these variations are not observed, however. This is what led me to conclude that a matter particle's motion had to be in a three dimensional motion pattern in order to produce a three dimensional balanced static mass effect. If I look up into the sky and see a star that is four light years away, how much of that empty space is related to me and how much of it is related to the star?

Sorry it took so long for me to give a return comment, but I have now started on another project, so, much of my time is now applied to that. I will do my best to respond, however.

Sincerely,

Paul