Dear Satyavarapu,
2. One thing to remember is that experimental results that are not connected directly to reality, such as computer simulations allow for the introduction of extra levels of error production, such as in conceptual errors in how the world that is being modeled actually works and mathematical and programing errors, etc. that can give invalid outputs that can be misleading. It is best to stick as much as possible to data that comes from actual real world observations. I can sympathize with you on the lack of support from the established scientific community.
I agree with you that FQXI has allowed the expression of new alternative concepts through their contests that don't always agree with mainstream scientific beliefs, which is a very good thing. It would be good if the scientific community as a whole was more open in this respect. There should be a part of the scientific community that honestly looks at and evaluates all new concepts and then gives feedback to the authors of those concepts, both about any current problems that they can solve and also about any problems with the new concepts that cause them to not agree with observed reality, etc. This should all be public, so that the authors of the concepts and others who may be considering the same or similar concepts can be guided by the knowledge gained from these conceptual evaluations. In addition to this, all currently believed scientific concepts should be continually evaluated in the light of all new observational data and the results should also be published publically. Any problems with existing generally accepted concepts should not be hidden as is often the case today, but should be widely published with the understanding that they need to be solved to make the understanding of those concepts sure and complete. Of course, to support this added scientific level, science would need to be better funded than it presently is.
Since I am trying to transfer information that is beyond man's current level of knowledge and, therefore, comes close to man's maximum believability threshold, I try to stay within man's current level of understanding as much as I can in other areas, so as not to increase the probability of rejection of the new information. Even that has not worked very well so far, however, for the reasons that I described to you in my last post to you, etc. Banishing myth, dogma, and superstitions do not depend only on giving out the information that does so, but also requires the reception and acceptance of those that the information is transferred to. If no one listens to the provided information or if those who listen ignore it, the information will not help man to advance and man will not be prepared for optimum advancement at the appropriate time and many will suffer loss. It would be good if you could take in and understand the information that I have provided in my papers in the FQXI contests, but I am not overly optimistic about that likelihood. So far you have not yet accepted information about concepts that are commonly understood by man, such as energy conservation and entropy, etc. I doubt that I would get anywhere if I started to give motion structuring concepts, etc. I don't want to just encourage you and others to continue in concepts that will not work, but to be willing to continually look at their concepts in the light of observable data and be willing to change them as needed to conform to observable reality. When the concepts have received any necessary changes so that they agree fully with observed reality, then I desire that you be encouraged to continue in them.
3. If only my work would accomplish the desired goal, but for things to work for the true benefit of man the acceptance of the information cannot be forced on man, but must be willingly accepted and understood. I doubt you or most others in this world would like it much if the information was placed in your mind and you were forced to believe it against your will. Just the concept of thought transfer would be considered to be an invasion of the mind by most. There would be great fear, etc. if forced belief was also used.
4. If man turns out to be incapable of understanding the basic information concepts provided and then advancing that understanding to higher levels without continual guidance from without, it is not likely that man would be considered able to add any new level of understanding as would be required for equal participation with others that can do so.
5. You are right. Space does not need to bend. It just needs to have positions in which motions can exist and move.
6. I am not saying that the concept of God is wrong. I am just saying that one must start by gaining understanding of how the observable world works and then the structure and operation of the world will reveal if it could have come about naturally or if it requires that God created it. I spent over twenty two years learning about the world's structure and ultimately came to the conclusion that because of its extreme complexity and hierarchical structure it could not have come about from natural chance occurrences, but had to have been created by an extremely intelligent God, especially the extreme complexity of even the simplest living creatures. I could then look at the various religions 'texts that said they were the word of God and see if what they said about the world agreed with observations. This led me to the true understanding of God.
7. That is a good beginning goal. I have found that when that understanding is completely achieved, it leads to the next goal that is more important than the first, which is to understand God as much as possible.
8. When I say great gravitational blue shift I am referring to its greater magnitude in comparison to the normal red and blue gravitational shifts that you refer to as the gravitational red shift even though it also produces a blue shift of equal magnitude in the opposite direction of travel of the photon (when it is travelling toward the center of gravity). In all of man's current observations that I am aware of, gravity is a balanced structure that increases the energy of an entity that is traveling toward its center and decreases the energy an equal amount when the entity travels away from its center. This means that an entity that travels close to a gravitational source first sees its energy increased during its interaction with the gravity field and then it gives up that increase in energy as it travels away from the field, so that at the end of the interaction when it has completely left the field, its amount of energy is returned to the original amount that it had before it entered the field, thus conserving energy. In your previous comment number 8, you said "Thank you, a possible Good experiment is proposed by you, nice. I think there can be other ways also possible....". I was just wondering what other experimental ways you were referring to.
9. In your answer to my red and blue shift comment last month, you called it the gravitational red shift. The point that I am trying to bring out is that the experiments show that the blue shift that is detected in photons that are traveling toward the center of gravity is equal to the red shift detected in photons that are traveling away from the center of gravity. You seem to believe that the detected blue shift is much less than the red shift because you call it the gravitational redshift, but the experimental observational data shows the blue shift and red shift to be equal in magnitude. I am not currently where I can access the actual data, but I believe that one of the first experiments was called the Pound Rebka experiment and was done way back in 1959. There were also other tests done, some in space. I will have to let you look them up because I cannot access that data from here at this point.
10. Here I am talking about the same effect, but you change from calling it the gravitational red shift, which you seem to think is very small, compared to the blue shift, which you say will be mostly blue and much larger. Are you saying that there are two different effects with different causes or just that the red shift will be smaller than the blue shift? The experiments that have been done to date show them to be equal in magnitude.
11. There are several problems with your concept of energy conservation. First, in order for the total amount of energy to be conserved or continually remain the same, each time an energy photon is upshifted, thus increasing the amount of energy it contains, the same amount of energy would also need to be simultaneously destroyed to maintain the same total amount of energy in the universe. To allow this to occur, there would have to be a causal link (some form of communication) from the photon upshifting to the energy destruction mechanism. Since the two could be separated by large distances, this could not work without faster than light information transfer. In reality energy conservation is achieved in each and every interaction between two or more entities. This works because energy conservation is just a part of energy transfer between entities. When an entity experiences an increase in its energy content, it is the result of reception of energy from another entity that has transferred some of its energy to it. As a result, the entity that transferred some of its energy to it, experiences an equal decrease in its energy content. All energy conservation is, therefore, a local effect of energy transfer in an interaction. Since the energy photon only interacts with the gravity field of the large gravity source, it would have to receive its energy upshifting increase from that field, which would result in an equal decrease in the gravitational field strength. If this energy was not returned to the gravity field in some way, the field strength would decrease more and more with each photon upshifting. Over a long period of time, large gravity fields would all measure to be smaller than they should considering all of the matter contained in them and its density, etc. I am not aware of any observational evidence to support that, however. Secondly, for the most part, matter is not converted to energy in the stars. The energy radiated from the stars comes mainly from freed binding energy not from matter particles being converted to energy photons. Most of the matter particles and all of the energy contained in them (in their structure) still remain in the stars. Thirdly, there is no conservation of the ratio of energy photons to matter in the universe. When you understand it all, it is obvious that the only thing that is conserved is the total amount of motion in the universe. This motion can be stored in the structure of matter particles, energy photons or, in sub-energy particles (fields) or in the linear or angular motions of these entities in space (kinetic motion), but it is all motion. Motion can be changed into any of these forms from any of these forms, but the total amount of motion remains the same. As an example, when two protons are given linear kinetic motion in opposite directions at close to the speed of light, so that they interact with each other, several new matter particles and energy photons can be created from the kinetic motion that they possessed going into the interaction. This means that the number of matter particles and energy photons in the universe is increased by the interaction. The total amount of motion that went into the interaction still remains the same in the output entities, however. Some of it has just been converted into the structural motions contained within the new matter particles and energy photons. The total of the kinetic motions of the particles is decreased by an equal amount as a result of the conversions that occurred in the interaction. This shows that the number of energy photons and matter particles or their ratios to one another are not conserved in the universe, since the ratio of the number of energy photons produced in such an interaction to the number of matter particles that are produced by the interaction is not always the same in each interaction. The ratio of production can vary from one interaction to another interaction, so the overall ratio is not maintained at the same level.
12. I do not follow your logic concerning how the star's velocity would affect the amount of blue or red shift that would occur during the upshifting, since it seems that you are not talking about the Doppler Effect. Please explain step by step the details of how the upshifting works in simple basic concepts that show what is going on inside of the energy photon during the frequency upshifting.
13. As I pointed out above, there is very little matter to energy conversion in stars. It is mostly just the freeing and radiation of binding energy in the atoms in the stars as they are compacted into more efficiently packed atoms that require less binding energy. It is, therefore, mostly an energy to energy conversion that leaves the matter particles intact. They are not converted into energy photons. This is the case for both the fusion and fission reactions. That is why the total amount of matter in the universe would continually increase if your photon upshifting actually worked to produce the energy to matter conversion that you mention. This idea of matter to energy conversion taking place in stars on a large scale is one of the most obvious errors in your theory because it does not actually happen. Also as I mentioned above, the photon upshifting and energy to matter conversion that you mention could only occur if the gravity field strength of the large gravitational objects was decreased by the amount of energy that the upshifted photons received in the upshifting interaction.
It is true that the cost of many experiments can be very great.
It is true that low wages for most workers make it very difficult if not impossible to save up enough money for retirement and no or very small pension benefits make things worse. The lowering of interest rates is also a worldwide policy of governments. It does not look like that will change for the better any time soon either because large worldwide corporations and the very rich have manipulated governments into giving them large amounts of money in subsidies, etc. that have caused the governments to be greatly in debt to them. If a government increases its interest rates, it must pay out more money to them, which causes it to go further into debt.
14. It is not just my feeling that I am giving you. Nuclear fission is relatively well understood by man at this point. Certain isotopes of certain atoms have specific probabilities to break down or fission into certain lighter atoms. The fission process often occurs through many intermediate stages of breakdown, but ultimately they end in the production of stable isotopes of lighter atoms and the process then stops there. Many experiments have been done to confirm these results.
If you can afford it, it is best to buy the land because otherwise if you have a bad crop year or two in a row, you could lose everything because you can't afford to pay the rent on the land, if you have no crops to sell. Also, once you have paid the land off, you won't have to pay rent and even if you have to buy the land on time, the amount you pay per year to buy the land over time should be less per year than the cost of rent, if you can get the credit at a reasonable rate. If you buy the land on time you still have the risk of losing it all if you have bad crop years before you get the land paid off, however. Once the land is paid off, you only need to have enough to pay off any annual property taxes, etc. Of course that is how it is in the U.S.A.; it may be different in India. Be sure to check your agreement and be sure that you won't be required to continue payments for the rest of the agreement year or you could find yourself having to continue to pay for the land rent for the rest of the year even if you give it up because of bad crop years, etc.
15. You are right that the frequency shifting would not directly produce higher atoms. If it worked, it would only produce energy photons that contained enough energy to be converted into matter particles (protons). The protons would then be fused into midrange element atoms in stars. The buildup of the midrange element atoms in the universe over time would cause more of them to be taken into stars, thus making the stars masses greater. More of the stars would become massive enough to end in supernovas. When the supernovas exploded at the end of their lives, more of the heavier elements would be produced by the explosions. Since the fusion process in stars converts the new protons into midrange atoms in the stars and the fission process only mostly breaks down some of the heavier atoms down into the midrange atoms, there is no real mechanism to stop the continual buildup of midrange atoms in the universe. This is because the midrange atoms have the lowest binding energies, so that it takes the addition of energy to them to convert them into the low range fusible atoms or into the larger fissionable atoms both of which have higher binding energies that must be added to the midrange atoms to convert them. If a star began to use much of the energy it produced by fusion to make the lower fusible atoms from the midrange atoms, the loss of that energy would cause the star to cool down some and would, thereby, disrupt the balance between temperature expansion and gravity contraction in the star. This would lead to the destruction of the star. This actually happens in very large massive stars when they begin to fuse iron into larger atoms. The cooling thus generated, causes the temperature expansion in the star to be less than the pull of gravity, resulting in the collapse of the star, which ends in a super nova explosion destroying the star.
16. You are right that it can all be worked out, but I don't think that you will be satisfied with the result, because the energy photon upshifting is contrary to energy conservation at the interaction level and the idea that the matter produced by fusion in the stars will somehow be broken down into energy photons is also impractical and contrary to entropy actions.
17. I have based my comments on what you have told me about the energy photon upshifting. So far you have not described the details of how this interaction functions. As I explained in this comment the only way that energy could be conserved in the upshifting interaction between the gravity field and a photon is if the energy that is received by the photon comes from a transfer of that energy from the gravity field. This would result in an equal decrease in the energy contained in the gravity field. If this occurs, all gravity fields should be measured to be weaker than would be expected from the amount of matter and that matter's density that they contain. I am not aware of any such observational results. So far the observed results of field strength agree with what would be expected from the matter construction of the large gravitational objects. That being the case, the only way that your theory could conserve energy is if there is a mechanism to transfer that energy back into the large gravity fields to restore them to their normal level. You have not yet mentioned any such mechanism. Your explanation so far of some vague breaking effect does not explain what actually transfers some of its energy into the photon or how it does it in the interaction. I need you to explain these things to me. Otherwise all I can do is to look at the problem and come up with the only possibly workable solution that I can think of and then see if that could actually work. That is what I have presented above. Simulations can be made to simulate anything from actual reality to a complete fictional world such as in a video game, etc., so I mostly only trust in real world observational data.
18. Last month you said that fission would break down the midrange atoms, but as I have explained this would not work because fission only occurs naturally when the atoms that result from the fission interaction contain less binding energy than the binding energy content of the atom that was broken up to produce them. Since the midrange atoms contain about the minimum amount of binding energy, they can only be broken down into smaller atoms by adding extra energy to them to add additional binding energy back into them. If this happened in any large scale, the star's fusion energy that would be consumed in the process would cause the star to cool down enough that it would become unstable and the star would be destroyed because the star's temperature expansion effect would be inadequate to counteract the star's inward pull of gravity. As I mentioned above this actually happens in very large stars when they are about to run out of fusible material and begin to fuse iron. The cooling effect caused by the energy that is added to the iron atoms to fuse them into higher atoms causes the collapse of the star ending in the supernova explosion that destroys the star. Although that example is about the extra binding energy that needs to be added back in to cause atoms in the minimum binding energy range to become atoms above that range, the same thing would apply to the addition of energy into atoms in the minimum binding energy range to cause them to fission into lighter atoms.
19. I am not sure what you are referring to here.
20. Just saying "No no no not that way.... No extra Super novae." will not make it work that way. So far I see no valid counter argument.
21. You are welcome.
22. I have looked into the eternal universe concept for quite a while because when I began to look at man's science the concept of a static never ending universe was the accepted theory. As time went on and more became to be understood about how the universe works, it became apparent that it could not be never ending. I have seen many suggest different ways to justify the never ending concept, but they all require the universe to work in ways that it does not actually work. So far your theory appears to be the same as the others. The computer model may produce a never ending universe within itself, but the model does not actually control the real universe. It can only be of any practical use if it behaves the same as the real universe does. There are still a few things to cover, but so far it doesn't seem to work.
23. At this time, I could not go into the internal concepts of black holes, so that is ok with me at this time.
24. Again the "No no no not that way, you are confusing...." is not a valid counter argument. It tells me nothing about your objection to what I said.
25. If what I said actually happened, the time would come that there would be no place in the universe that was not filled with too much non-fusible matter to allow a new galaxy to form or take birth.
26. Please give the details of the upshifting interaction, so I can see where the energy that goes into the photons to upshift them actually comes from. A general explanation such as "The stars will give energy.
Depending on the energy requirement of particular ray the frequency shifting will take place" does not help any because the stars are very large and have very many types of interactions taking place continually. I need for you to tell me about how the specific interaction that upshifts a photon works and what the entity is that transfers some of its energy to the photon to upshift it.
I see your new comments, but I am sending the responses to just these in order to get it to you because it would take longer before I could get this off to you if I try to answer all of them now.
Sincerely,
Paul
