Dear Satyavarapu,
Your comment of May 9
1. It is good that you place the true knowledge and understanding of the universe as more important than money. This can, of course, be very difficult if you don't have enough money to pay for necessary living expenses. For that reason I can have compassion on those who must make the decision as to whether to give in to the currently accepted scientific understandings in order to be accepted by the scientific establishment and get adequate money to live and resources to do their research, etc. or to work elsewhere as you did in the steel plant, etc. and not have access to research facilities to do desired research, but be able to stay true to one's understandings even when they do not agree with established scientific beliefs. The real problem is not so much in those who are weak and give in, but in a scientific establishment that is structured in such a way as to require such behavior of those who work in the field. I don't mind challenges to the concepts that I am giving out to others, as long as they come from an honest desire to understand the concepts and determine if they are true and not just to try to undermine their acceptance by others in order to continue to propagate false beliefs in their place. Since I am just giving out the basic concepts and it is up to others to develop them with math models, etc. as I mentioned in my last comment to you, I can only give supportive information up to a point. Most of the information that I am giving is in accordance with existing observational data. It mainly gives explanations of that data at a lower and more detailed level than man's current science level can do. The causes of such things as the specific multiple outcomes from a given interaction between two matter particles that are possible and the specific probability of each occurring can be explained in a straight forward way in terms of the motions involved and their specific positioning or relative phasing at the point of interaction, etc.
It is not necessary to find the actual start of a gravity field to observe the effect that I mentioned of an increase in energy as one travels toward a large mass and an equal decrease as one travels away from the field. You can pick any convenient distance from the large gravity field's center of gravity and record the test object's energy level at that point. You then record it again at its closest point to the center of gravity that it arrives at during its approach. Next you let it travel a distance in its travel away from the center of gravity that is equal to the distance that it traveled from your original chosen starting point distance from the center of gravity to the closest point in its travel and then record its energy at that point. The recorded data should show that the object has the same amount of energy at both the beginning and ending points and a greater amount of energy at the closest point. You could then logically extend the beginning and ending points out to any equal distance and expect that they will remain equal in energy. Of course, it would be wise to check it at several different equal distances from the closest point to the center of gravity to be sure that it checks out. If the objects path brings it close enough to any other large gravity force to produce a measurable effect on the object, then that effect would also need to be factored in to the measured results, of course. Although the UGF would have some effects on the experiment, if the large gravity field object was chosen, such that there were no other large gravity objects within several light years, the UGF effect would likely be too small to measure, since they decrease by the square of the distance. The starting and ending points of the experiment could be chosen close enough to the center of gravity of the large gravity object, so that the field strength of the gravity field would be strong enough throughout the distance traveled during the experiment to overpower any weak gravity effect from far away UGF objects. If you are looking for absolute distances, however, it depends on the age of the large gravity object and the speed of propagation of the gravity field. As an example, if a star like the sun is about four and one half billion years old and if the gravity field propagates or travels at the speed of light, then the beginning or ending of the field would be about four and one half billion light years from the center of the star. This would, of course, have to be adjusted to account for the motion of the star as a whole during the four and one half billion years. There would be other variables, but that would be a simplified example with enough detail to make it clear that each object's gravity field only extends so far. It shows something that most people never consider. This means that if you look at a galaxy that is eight billion light years away, you cannot see any stars in it that are less than eight billion years old because the light from them could not have reached the earth yet. This means that if you wanted to look for other stars that came into being four and one half billion years ago, you could only find them in galaxies that are four and one half billion light years away or closer. If you look at the galaxy that is eight billion light years away, you might see stars that appear to be only four and one half billion years old, but since it took eight billion years for that light to reach us, the actual current age of the star would be twelve and one half billion years, so it very well might have burned out by now.
I generally don't give math equations because generally I find man's math to be too vague in its presentation to be easily understandable by most people, especially advanced math. You will have to generate the math yourself if you can't understand the information that I am giving in English language form. I believe I gave it clear enough that its understanding should be obvious.
You are right that the gravity field of any object that is old enough and close enough to have reached the path of the test object would have some effect on the test. The farther away the object is and the smaller that its gravity field is the less would be the effect that it would have on the test. This means that most objects even those with large gravity fields that are billions of light years away would not likely measurably affect the test results because their gravity fields would be too dissipated by their great distances and small objects with small gravity fields would have to be much closer to cause measurable effects on the test results. You are right that the moon even though its gravity field is small can affect the tides on earth, but at the same time the other planets only have very small effects on the tides on earth even though their masses are much greater than he moon's. This shows how much distance can affect the ability of a given gravity field to make measurable effects.
Although most of the hydrogen in the universe would have been created very early in the formation of the universe, the instabilities in the density of the hydrogen that would allow stars to ultimately form and the galaxies that would then form from the stars, etc. would develop over a very long time. This means that the continual increase in the formation of new stars and galaxies will go on for a very long time as new instabilities gradually form until a saturation point is achieved where most of the hydrogen is used up in the universe. The formation of new galaxies will then continually decrease in number per unit of time until there is no longer enough free hydrogen left to generate any more new galaxies. Since a large portion of the universe still does not contain galaxies, the process of formation of new stars and galaxies will still go on for a very long time before all of the hydrogen is used up.
Your comments of May 11
2. Much of this was explained in my previous comment where I explained that when 4 protons are joined together to form a helium atom, the matter particles are not changed into energy photons. Although several processes occur in which some of the energy that is freed is converted into other forms such as the energy added to two of the protons that converts them into neutrons and the creation of a neutrino, etc., all of that energy and the energy that is ultimately radiated away from the helium atom in the form of energy photon(s) that would be the energy that could potentially be upshifted by your proposed upshifting process comes from the excess energy present in the atom's external sub=energy field due to the combination of the sub-energy fields of all four of the original 4 protons into a single sub-energy field that then contains more energy than it needs to contain the protons and neutrons within the nucleus of the atom and to some degree the kinetic motion that is contained by the 4 protons at the start of the process, etc. This means that the energy photon that could be up shifted is created by the conversion of the excess sub-energy field strength of the helium atom into an energy photon. None of the original 4 matter particles are converted into energy photons. Since the sub-energy field particles in the field travel around the high density sub-energy field spheres at about a ninety degree angle to any entity that travels directly toward the atom, they do generate some of the atom's static mass effect, so when some of this field strength is dissipated by the radiation of an energy photon, the atom's static mass is reduced also. This means that for the most part instead of matter being converted to energy, sub-energy field motion is converted to energy. If that energy is then converted to matter particles (protons) and those matter particles are then fused into more helium atoms, there would be a continual increase in the number of protons and neutrons in the universe. In order to restore the balance of the number of matter particles in the universe to the normal amount, you would need to convert the new protons back into some other form of energy that would ultimately be used to restore the sub-energy fields in the helium atoms back to their normal strength of motion and add some more kinetic motion to the atoms to allow them to be broken apart back into separate protons. The problem is that neither fusion nor fission breaks protons down into other forms of energy. To see what would happen if your theory is true at least as far as I understand it at this time, we can start from the fusion reaction in stars and go through one complete cycle. First, the large gravitational pull of the very large number of protons in the star pulls the protons toward the center of the star. This greatly increases the pressure on the protons, which also increases the temperature due to more protons per area of space in the star. The pressure and temperature eventually get high enough to allow fusion of protons into helium atoms through several intermediate steps. The fusion process transfers energy (motion) from the helium atoms' sub-energy fields into the creation of energy photons that are radiated out into space. The energy photons travel close to large gravitational objects (mostly stars) and are up shifted in frequency by transfer of energy from the objects' gravitational fields to a high enough frequency, so that they contain enough energy (motion) to allow them to be converted into protons. The up shifted energy photons travel close enough to an angular motion source that is great enough to cause them to be changed into matter particles (protons). The protons are taken up into new and existing stars by their gravity fields and are then fused into more helium atoms. The idea is that this cycle would continue without end. The most obvious problems with this scenario are:
1. There would be a continual increase in the number of protons in the universe. I see nothing in your theory that would in any way break them back down into the gravity fields of the large gravity objects. Fusion and fission could not break them down.
2. There would be a continual decrease in the strength of the gravity fields of the large gravitational objects. Note: the gravity field strength of a large gravitational object would not be depleted much from upshifting one energy photon in the same way that the fusion of four protons in a star into a helium atom would not do much to counteract the star's contraction, but the continuation of a very large number of fusion reactions at the same time in the star can stop that contraction. Since all of those energy photons that are created by all of those fusion processes in the star would need to be upshifted and converted back into protons, this very large number of photons could greatly deplete the star's gravity field and this would continue and get worse over time.
3. There would be a decrease in the sub-energy fields of the protons that are joined together into helium atoms, which would mean a continual increase in the number of helium atoms in the universe. If your theory would in some way break these helium atoms back down into protons, it would have to add all of this energy back into the sub-energy fields of all of the protons in the helium atoms and then add extra energy in the form of kinetic energy to separate the protons from each other.
The end result of this process would be a continual increase in the number of protons in the universe that would be stored in a continual increase of helium atoms in stars and a continual depletion of the gravity fields of large gravity objects. Of course this could not continue without end. I have left out several details, such as that in larger stars the helium atoms would fuse into larger atoms up to iron continually increasing the amount of them also, etc., but it gives the basic most serious problems.
3. I have not said that the upshifting of the energy photons would directly create midrange atoms. The upshifted energy photons would first have to approach near enough to a sufficiently strong angular motion source to allow the upshifted photons to be converted into matter particles (protons, electrons, etc.). The protons would then have to be taken into stars and fused into helium atoms. In larger stars the helium atoms could be fussed into larger midrange atoms up to iron. It is the fusion of these new protons that would continue to generate the midrange atoms. If you look at the binding energy chart in the article that I mentioned in my previous post you will see that these midrange atoms cannot be fused into higher mass atoms without adding energy to them and they also cannot fission into lighter atoms without adding energy to them. If a star tried to do either change on any kind of a large scale, the energy that it would use to do it would cause the star to not be able to have enough remaining energy to resist gravitational collapse and it would collapse and be destroyed in a supernova type explosion. This actually happens when a very large star starts to fuse iron.
As I mentioned in my previous comment, my position is to only give basic structural details, so I will not generally work in man's math except as needed to make basic points clear. Even then I will generally stay with the use of only a level of math that the average person can understand and will define all math items and their units. Because of this I try to use math very sparingly because of the extra work involved.
Your comment of May 19
I have just about finished my project, so I will then have some more time to work with you if you still desire to do so. I am not in a position, however, to make long trips, such as to Los Altos for the event that you mentioned because my wife is getting a knee replacement surgery on July 24th, so I will need to be with her for the next several months while she recovers from it to help her to do what is needed to take care of her and to do the work that she usually does now. Of course, she will not be able to travel during that time either. It will likely be next year before her knee is fully recovered, but she also has back problems that cause her much back pain. If the doctors cannot find a way to relieve her pain, it will still not be practical for us to make long trips then either.
Your comments of May 21
A. When it comes to basic modeling concepts, there are two primary pathways that can be followed. The first is structural modeling, which involves gaining an understanding of the details of the structures involved and their action and interaction pathways. The idea here is to understand what things are made of and how it is that they are put together and operate that generates the output results or behaviors that result from their individual actions and/or the interactions between them. Once you understand these things it is relatively easy to integrate any newly understood structure into the system because its internal action pathways are already understood and can only generate interactions with other entities that are compatible with both its internal structure and the internal structure of the other entities that it can interact with. When the structures to be modeled contain cyclical motions in their structuring, path flow structuring modeling methods can work very well.
Path flow structuring builds the model structure through the generation of paths and their intersections or interactions. It works well with cyclical motion structures because once a path has been generated it is used over and over again continuously due to the repetitive nature of the cyclical motions that are involved. There are, of course their flow control choice structures, etc. that determine the path flow outcome of an individual entity's flow through the entire path flow structure , which depends on the motion conditions within each path loop and, therefore, the conditions at the intersections of path loops when the entity passes through their intersections. Man's current mostly linear computers cannot handle this type of modeling very well, but computers can be designed that can work on the path flow principles with the ability to generate many simultaneous loops and their intersection structures. Since the universe that we experience is composed completely of motions and those motions within it that generate the rules of its operation and the motion flows through it are for the most part cyclical in structure, the cyclical path flow motion structures in these computers can easily model the real world cyclical motion structures in this world.
The other modeling method is called behavioral modeling and is the method that is predominantly used by man at this time. It looks at the output behaviors of the interactions between entities and then tries to develop rules of behavior that would generate the observed behavioral outputs. Although these rules can be expressed in a simple conceptual form, it is generally considered incomplete until it is expressed in complex mathematical form. Since many things in this world are similar in construction to other things and are often connected directly structurally to those things that have been modeled, it is often possible to use the modeling results to extrapolate the behavior of other things not yet modeled and possibly not yet observed. Because the underlying structure is not usually understood, progression by this method is generally more limited due to the lack of connective information that would allow a deeper understanding of what is actually happening.
It works best when these two methods are both used together. To begin with only the interactional observational outputs are available for use when the structure cannot be directly or indirectly observed by man, so it is understandable why behavior modeling is used first to develop a beginning understanding of what is going on. Once an understanding of what behavioral outputs are possible and what their relative probability of occurrence, etc. is gained, it is then time to use that information to determine what underlying structure would generate those results using structural modeling techniques. At this stage it is not necessary that the structural model that is generated is actually true to reality, but only that it can generate all of the observed outputs at the observed probability rates, etc. and does not generate outputs that are contrary to observations. This proposed structure can then be used to predict any new as yet unobserved outputs, etc. and these things can then be looked for to see if they actually can be made to be observed by experiment. Over time, the model will be changed as necessary to explain new observations that disagree with it until it is actually true to reality and fully explains the structure of reality. It is this structural modeling that is currently being greatly neglected by man in this world. The result is that man generally has very little understanding of what a field, an energy photon, or a matter particle is or even could be made of and how they could work internally to produce the observed behavioral outputs and their relative probabilities, etc. This has resulted in the production of many nonsensical concepts, such as time travel into the past or future, the idea that nothing can occur unless and until it is observed, and the idea that matter particles and energy photons can be constructed from nothing for very short times (virtual particles), etc., that require space to have an energy/vacuum pressure level, etc. that is not really required when the underlying structures of these things are understood.
An additional problem that exists today is in the vague structure of man's current math structures. One problem is that the same abstract figure is used to represent different things in different math expressions. As an example, the figures X, Y, and Z could represent specific dimensional coordinates or just variables with different meanings in different math expressions. One must, therefore, understand the behind the scenes meanings that are applied to the elements of an individual expression. The expression would have no discernible meaning if the expression was read without knowledge of the behind the scenes meanings that have been applied to the various figures that are used in it. Another problem is that a given figure may represent another complete math expression or even a combination of many such expressions. This means that to get a full understanding of the meaning of what looks like a simple math expression, it may be necessary to fully understand a multitude of behind the scenes information structures that are not presented in the math expression. These types of things allow the development of much confusion and error as to the true full meaning of an expression often even among scientists. Much scientific material that is greatly math based presents many math expressions without giving the meanings of the figures that are used in the math expressions, so that the material is only of use to those who are already greatly familiar with the expressions. This greatly hinders the transfer of valid information to those who do not already possess that information. As a simple example, if I give the math expression T = (PX) P, it would likely mean nothing to anyone unless I also give the information that to me T= total cost, P=price of meal, and X= the tip percentage to be given to the server.
The big difference between modeling based on experimental observations and computer models is that the experimental observations are actually observing reality itself while the computer model is looking at a program that may not have been based on real world observation, but only on someone's belief of how the real world works. It may be based on generally accepted math structures that abstractly represent some portion of reality, but because of the problems with math mentioned above, the math structure's meanings may be improperly interpreted. The translation of the math structures into computer programs could also contain errors, which might not be readily apparent. This creates extra layers of complexity that increases the likelihood of errors. The more directly you can work in reality the less likely you will experience errors or misinterpretations in that work. You are right, however, that errors can occur in either method.
It is good that you consider the needs of the student that you desire to teach, but it is not always necessary to support the student. In today's world it is usually expected that the student will take care of his own needs while he is learning and even pay for the education, at least at the college or university level. God, however, says freely ye have received, so freely give. He doesn't expect you to pay the student to learn from you or to charge him to do so either. Since any thought or idea that you have that would be good for others to know has been given to you by God and he has not charged you for that information, he expects you to also give it freely to others. He does not say that you must support the student while you are teaching him, however, although that would be a good thing to do if the student needs it and you can afford it. It is good that you see that God is actually in control of if and/or when any information that he gives to you is allowed to be received by any other(s). It is easy to begin to think that if others don't receive the information that you are trying to give to them it will be lost and no one will ever know it, but if God gives you some certain knowledge he can also give it to anyone else that he desires to receive it. This means that when God gives you any knowledge and you try to teach it to others as he commands you to do, it may be that those that you try to teach it to will not receive or believe it, which could be because he has given it to you only for your benefit of understanding and he uses your teaching to give you more information and understanding about it, or it may be that it is meant that someone will in the future see it and receive it. If you are still in the world at that time, that one may come to you for more knowledge. Of course, it could happen hundreds of years after you have left this world and God may then supply any further information needed directly to that person or provide it from others to whom he has already given that information. Our job in this world is just to give out the knowledge and understandings that God has given to us to others. It is up to him to decide who will receive it and use it, if anyone at all. I have found that any knowledge that God gives me about this world that he created or about him directly helps me to know him better and to know more about him and what he made this world for and how he uses it and what my part is in it, to prepare me for the part that he gives me in the new permanent perfect world that comes after this one is destroyed. The important thing is to continue to learn more from him for your own preparation. This can be directly from him or through others that he gives to you for that purpose.
B. It has always been that those who have the resources control what concepts are considered to be the mainstream accepted theories.
C. I was suggesting that there be a change made, so that all concepts would be treated equally until they prove to be wrong or greatly lacking in accuracy compared to observed reality. New concepts would be evaluated on the basis of whether they agree with observed reality instead of whether they agree with currently accepted mainstream theories. This new part of the scientific structure would be a great departure from the current evaluation structure and would require specially trained people who would have a data base of all scientific experimental observational information as complete as possible available to them to use to evaluate new concepts to compare them for conformance with observed reality. Most of man's concepts have one or more inconsistencies in them, so it would be necessary to consider both the number and severity of the consistencies in relation to the viability of the overall concept. Once this was done on all current concepts they could then be compared with competing concepts to see which is the most viable in conformance to reality and that one would be the currently most accepted concept, but it would have to be continually reevaluated in the light of new concepts and new experimental observational data.
D. I am glad we agree.
E. Energy can be converted into mass and mass can be converted into energy because they are both just composed of motions. The motions in matter particles that produce their mass effects are just locked up into very small internal cyclical motions so they are not seen as motions by man because man does not yet possess the ability to observe such small things. The same thing goes for the cyclical motion in energy photons that generates their frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects. Although these motions cannot be seen directly by man, they can be observed indirectly. When two matter particles are aimed at each other and their motions are increased to near the speed of light in opposite directions their interaction can create several new matter particles. The total mass of all of the new matter particles can be much more than the rest mass of the original two matter particles. It can be seen that the near the speed of light motion has been converted into the rest mass of the new matter particles and also their new extra kinetic mass effects. This shows that mass and kinetic motion are equivalent to each other or they are the same thing. Such interactions can also create energy photons and all of this experimental observational information has been available for a long time to man, but is generally being ignored.
F. It is not true that the "Dynamic Universe Model is totally based on observed data", and nothing else. It is based on such things as the upshifting of photons that travel near large gravity objects, etc. that have not yet been observed to actually happen in reality.
G. I am glad we agree here also.
H. I was not talking about you forcing your concepts on others. You do not have that ability even if you desired to do so. I was talking about the ability of others that are more advanced than man in understanding who could look into your mind on a size scale that you could not detect and could observe what you observe through your senses, look at your thoughts and memories and even change them if they desired to do so. They could implant new thoughts in your mind that you would believe to be your own internally generated thoughts. Of course, they could also make themselves known to you in your mind and offer to work with you on an equal basis, so you could advance along with them and work for common goals together, etc. My point is that most people would not want their minds controlled by someone else without their permission, but the ability to do so exists. Of course, God does such things either directly or through others that he allows to do so. Those who love him and are his according to his purpose have the promise that all things will work for good for them, so there is no need to worry about such things. Those who are not God's, however, do not have that promise.
It is good that you see that all that you have has been given to you by God. Most people are not willing to recognize that. People like to believe that they have complete freedom of choice to think and do what they desire to do. We were not designed to work that way, however. God controls those who are his and he created another to control those who do not choose to have him to rule over them and he gives control of them over to him. The only real choice that we can make is to choose which of the two we choose to rule over us. Those who choose God are slowly changed by him to be as he desires us to be to make us ready to become his body members in the world to come over a period of time called sanctification that varies with each person. That is part of the reason that you will see people who say they are Christians whose behavior ranges from being much like those who do not choose God to rule over them for the beginners to those who are completely in line with what God desires for them to be for those who are completely sanctified. It would be expected that the behavior of those who choose God to rule over them to all tend to develop toward the same behavior according to God's will, but if we can actually all have complete freedom of choice all who do not choose God should exhibit behaviors that diverge from each other more and more over time. This is not the case, however. Their behavior tends toward complete opposition to God's expressed desires. Although there is also a range of behavior in those who do not choose God, the trend is to attempt to remove all knowledge and all visible indications of God's existence from the world, so that all will disbelieve in him and, therefore, will not be able to choose to believe in and to follow God as their ruler. This, of course, amounts to removal of their freedom of choice as to who will rule over them, which they should be against, since they believe that they should have this right to choose, but in reality their desire of freedom to choose only works in the one direction to choose to not have God as their ruler. This is a visible indication that they are all under the control of someone who is actively working against God and is trying to undermine God's work of creating a body for himself to dwell in. Another visible indication that man is not made to have complete freedom of choice in how he leads his own life is that man invariably always chooses someone to rule over him. Those who believe God choose him and those who don't believe God, choose a man, since they cannot find any other better than themselves to do it. To me it seems only logical that if I am a man and I can't properly rule over my own life, it would not be logical to assume that any other man could do any better, since we are all subject to the same physical and mental restrictions. The fact that this happens indicates that man is not made to rule over himself, which is why God made someone else to rule those who don't want to be ruled by him. Since they generally don't see and perceive the other one who rules over them they choose a man to do so. In reality, however, their minds and other aspects of their lives are controlled by this other one that God made for that purpose. This gives each man the right to choose who will rule over him. This is the only truly free choice that we have.
I. and J. It is good that we agree here also.
K. It is good that you are a firm believer in God. The only other thing that is needed is to believe in him as he really is and be as he desires for us to be in how we come to him and to know what we are to do in this world and how we are to get prepared for the world to come. We cannot just come to him and serve him as we desire because he has made only one way that we can come into his presence. If we try to do so in some other way, it won't work. He has done this to separate those who really desire to know him as he is and to do his will from those who just want to get eternal life, but don't really want to be become joined to him as a member of his body and do his will. A common error that many people make is to believe that God accepts everyone no matter how they come to him and what they believe and do in life. This is usually based on such people's desire to be god and make God to be their servant to give them all that they desire for him to do for them. Those who treat God in this way are just wasting their time because he will not receive them that way. God's son Jesus Christ said "I am the way the truth, and the life, no man can come unto the Father (God the Father) but by me." This means that you can only come to God through his Son Jesus Christ. Just having a belief in God is not enough no matter how firm that belief is. God says "even the devils believe and tremble.", but the devils are not saved. They have the fear of God and God says "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom.", but God also desires that we love him and he says "perfect love casts out all fear." The devils never get to the point of loving God in the way that he desires for them to do, so they continue to fear him. Jesus said "if a man loves me he will keep my commandments." This shows that true love is not just having a feeling of love for God, but also includes the desire and willingness to get to know him as he is and to do his will to please him. God tells us why we can't come to him directly when he says "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." His ways (purposes and intents) and his thoughts are above our ability to understand, so he communicates with us through his son, who can communicate with both God the father and also with us. That is why he says that there is one mediator between man and God, which is Christ Jesus. That is why I always encourage everyone to read the Christian Old and New Testaments to get to know God in the way that will result in the fullness of the relationship with God that he desires to have with us. The purpose of the Old Testament is to bring us to the knowledge of our need to be saved by Christ and the New Testament gives us the agreement that God is offering to us that allows us to be saved and have eternal life and to become members or parts of the body that he is making for himself to live in when he has brought us into the new world that replaces this one.
L. I think I mentioned that the observation has already been done and gave the Pound Rebka experiment as an example. Although others have also been done, I will leave it up to you if you want to look them up also.
M. I have not had time to look up and see if such an experiment has been done. You could try to Google it, etc.
N. See L. above.
O. Yes that is where I mentioned the Pound Rebka experiment. You are welcome. I mostly get this information from the internet, so you could get it that way also.
P. I already did with the Pound Rebka experiment reference. You can get this and other information by googling it, etc. on the internet.
Your comments of May 22
Q. As I mentioned above, the mass that is being converted into energy in the stars is not the result of conversion of protons into energy photons, but it is the result of the conversion of some of the mass of the protons' sub-energy fields into energy photons, etc. The upshifting that you propose would produce complete new protons with complete new sub-energy fields. This would reproduce the sub-energy fields, but it would also leave all of the original protons with their decreased sub-energy fields, which would still be stored in the stars joined together in the form of helium atoms. At the same time, the gravity fields of the large gravity objects (mostly stars) would be depleted by transferring some of their field strength into the energy photons to upshift them. I don't see anything in your theory that would correct these imbalances.
R. In reality any increase in energy that any entity experiences is the result of an energy transfer from another entity that receives an equal decrease in its energy. This is a form of direct communication of energy between entities. This would generate the results of your photon upshifting that is described in Q. above. If you propose some other method of energy conservation that does not automatically conserve the total amount of energy (motion) in the universe that does actually occur with the energy (motion) transfer mechanism that is observed in all of man's reality observations to date, then there would need to be some way that an increase in energy in one entity would immediately cause an equal decrease in some other entity. If this did not occur, any increase in energy that occurred in an entity would increase the total amount of energy in the universe until an equal decrease actually occurred. If the system was open ended, such that several increases or decreases could possibly occur before an opposite occurrence(s) happened to balanced out the total amount of energy, the total amount of energy would not be conserved, since it would not always remain the same, but would at least fluctuate around some balance point. The only way that absolute energy conservation can be maintained is if any mechanism that creates an increase in energy in the system either automatically creates an equal decrease somewhere else or at least communicates information of the increase directly to whatever other mechanism will cause such an immediate equal decrease in energy, so that the total energy in the whole system always remains the same. If the two mechanisms are separated by any amount of space, that information could only be transferred from the first mechanism to the other mechanism at the speed of light or less. This would generate some amount of time from an energy increase in one place before an equal decrease could be generated in the other mechanism. The result would be a change in the total amount of energy in the system for that time period. Since the total amount of energy would not always remain the same, true energy conservation would not be maintained.
S. It is not necessary that every energy photon / particle will be converted into mass and vice versa. It is only necessary that every energy photon that receives an increase in its energy (motion) content by upshifting or by any other interaction, somehow immediately causes an equal decrease in the energy content of some other entity, so that the universe always contains the same total amount of energy (motion). Any increase in one place must also be accompanied by a simultaneous decrease somewhere in order to maintain the same total amount of energy (motion) in the universe.
T. When an energy photon is transformed into a matter particle there is an energy (motion) transfer that takes place, but it is mostly internal within the energy photon/matter particle. As an example, when an energy photon that contains enough motion within it to produce a matter particle comes within range of an adequate angular motion source it can allow it to transfer some of its motion that generates its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects into the place within it that generates the cyclical motion transfer from that place into the lower three dimensions, which causes the photon to travel in a curved path that encloses back upon itself to create its cyclical curved angular motion path. The great angular motion generated by that cyclical motion around that curved enclosed motion path creates the static mass effect of the resultant matter particle. Since the photon that is within the matter particle travels repetitively around its enclosed curved motion path, it no longer travels in a straight line as it did when it was just an energy photon. The enclosed path can be stationary in space or it can also travel in some direction in space at any speed up to about the speed of light. This works the same way when a matter particle changes into an energy photon. As an example, since the motion that creates the matter particle's curved motion path and its static mass effect travels in one direction in a matter particle and in the opposite direction in an antimatter particle, when a matter particle and an antimatter particle interact with each other, the angular motion content that allows motion to pass into the place in the particle that transfers that motion into the lower three dimensions is canceled out. This results in the transfer of that motion back into the place within the matter particle that generates the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of the photon that is contained in the matter particle. The end result is that the photon's motion is no longer curved, but travels in a straight line at the speed of light and loses it static mass effect, thus transferring it back into an energy photon. In both cases the motion (energy) is just transferred from one place within the particle to another place in the particle. There is, therefore, a motion (energy) transfer involved, but for the most part it takes place within the particle. The total amount of motion contained within the particle remains essentially the same.
U. Most of the photons emitted by stars do not contain enough motion (energy) within them to make a matter particle like a proton. Your proposed frequency upshifting which would add the needed extra motion (energy) to the photon to allow it to contain enough energy within it to make a proton would add the extra motion that would be required by the photon to allow it to make a proton. This extra energy (motion) would need to be added to the photon from some source that is outside of it. In your example that source could only be the gravitational field of the large gravity source. Once it has received that motion from an external source it can then transfer it internally to the place within it that would convert it into a proton if it also comes close enough to an adequate angular motion source.
V. You are right that the reactions in fission and fusion bombs are the same type of reactions that take place in stars. The chart shown in the reference web page, which I referred you to in my previous comment to you, shows how that works. Any atom that is lower than iron on the chart can conceivably be converted into an atom that is higher up in the chart and in the process it can give off some amount of energy from its sub-energy field, since the resultant atom does not need all of the energy that comes from all of the sub-energy fields of the individual matter particles (when all of those individual sub-energy fields are joined together into a single sub-energy field) to contain the matter particles within the innermost high density sub-energy sphere of the atom. The mass that is converted into energy is what is called the nuclear binding energy and the loss in mass within the atom is that part of the atom's total mass effect that had been converted into another energy form by the conversion of some of the atom's sub-energy field into that other form of energy. As mentioned before, for the most part none of the protons or neutrons are converted into other energy forms. Only a part of the atoms sub-energy field is converted from mass effect into other energy forms. There is a binding energy that has to do with the binding of atoms together into molecules, but it is much weaker than the nuclear binding energy.
W. I believe that you are thinking that I am talking about chemical binding energy of atoms into molecules when I am actually referring to nuclear binding energy.
X. I was referring to item 12 in your comment to me on May 1, 2017, where you said "Mostly blue shift happens and as the velocity of light will be high compared to velocity of star. The quantum of blue shifting will be high low at the normal star velocities.
When the star velocities are comparable to that of light then the redshift will be observable."
Y. Again I think you were thinking that I was referring to chemical binding energy that has to do with the binding of atoms into molecules. I was talking about nuclear binding energy, which is much greater in amplitude or energy.
Z. There may have been a misunderstanding of semantics here. When I use the construct of "matter to energy conversion" I am talking about the conversion of matter particles into energy photons or some other form of energy (motion). You talk about loss of mass, which does not actually say that the loss comes from the conversion of matter particles into other form(s) of energy. Since that loss of mass comes from the transfer of motion from the atom's sub-energy field particles to an energy photon or due to some other mode of transfer, we are both right. There is a loss of mass effect that occurs due to the loss of some of the atom's sub-energy field strength, so you are right. At the same time that loss does not for the most part come from conversion of matter particles into other form(s) of energy, so I am also right.
A single proton contains about 60 times as much energy as the amount that is emitted when a helium atom is created by the fusion of 4 protons into a helium atom including all of the interactions that take place in that process. If large scale conversion of protons into other forms of energy did occur in stars, the amount of energy created would not only balance the pull of gravity as actually happens in stars, but would cause the stars to explode much more violently than occurs in a supernova explosion.
Aa. I also do not have access to man's equipment resources to do experiments and the results of the use of any other resources for that purpose would not be releasable.
Ab. You are welcome.
Ac. Man has been able to create the temperature and pressure conditions on a small scale for some time. An example of this ability is the production of fusion in hydrogen bombs and the production of fission in atomic bombs. The main problem is to maintain the reactions long enough to measure any variations in decay rates, etc. Some elements have very short half-lives, however, so it may be possible to see any variations in them. I have not yet checked to see if any such experiments have as yet been performed by man here.
Ad. You are welcome again. I hope things work out well for you on the land.
Ae. As I have explained already, fusion and fission could not break down the midrange atoms. If you know of some other mechanism that would, please let me know what it is and we can discuss it.
Af. As I explained earlier, it is not in my best interest in the process of testing man's ability to understand and develop the basic principles and structural models that I am presenting, to give man's mathematical structures and models to explain them. These things are for man to develop. I have tried to explain the concepts that I have presented as clearly as I can, but you do not appear to understand them and continue to not be able or willing to explain how the photon frequency upshifting results in energy conservation other than by math models that I cannot at this time address. If you understand the meaning of the math model that you are presenting, you should be able to present that meaning in simple language form without the math structure to explain how it is that the total amount of energy is continually conserved in your model. I think that we should both agree that when the energy photons are up shifted, they gain energy from somewhere. I am looking for your conceptual understanding of the structure of the energy photons, of the large gravity object and its gravity field, and how you understand that the energy photons' energy is increased without increasing the total amount of energy in the universe. For energy conservation to be maintained, any increase in the amount of energy in an energy photon by upshifting or by any other cause must result in an immediate decrease in energy somewhere else so that the total amount of energy in the universe always remains the same. This works automatically under the concept that when an entity's energy is increased it is always due to its receiving an energy transfer from some other entity, which then contains an equal amount less energy than it possessed before the transfer, as a result of the transfer. In this way the total amount of energy always remains the same. If you believe that this is the way that it works also, then what entity gives up some of its energy to the photon to upshift it? If you don't believe that it works that way, what is your concept of how it works in simple English and how does it work to upshift the photon's energy amount and how does it at the same time keep the total amount of energy in the universe constant. If you can't do that we probably will not be able to work together on that concept.
Ag. Without the use of the math, please explain your theory in simple conceptual terms of how it works to upshift the photons and at the same time also works to maintain the same constant amount of energy in the universe (maintains energy conservation). The math model shows the relationships between the behaviors of the energy photons, the large gravity object, and its gravity field, etc. There is always a structure that exists behind these things and their relationships that generates the observed relationships that are modeled by the math model (how the things are constructed or made, what they are made of, what actions each thing can generate, and how do these actions of the individual things interact together with those of other things to generate the observed behaviors), etc. It is your understanding of this conceptual structural, action abilities, and interactional outcomes that I am interested in receiving from you. It goes beneath and is the basis of the creation of the behaviors and their relationships that the math model describes.
Ah. The table of binding energies of the atoms that was in the web page that I referred you to in my last comment to you shows how that works.
Ai. See Ah. Above.
Aj. I have already given some of man's data such as the chart that shows that the midrange atoms are the ones that are at the lowest energy levels and that those that are lower in size than them will naturally combine together in stars by fusion to produce them and those that are greater in size will tend to break down into them naturally by fission. It also shows that the midrange atoms can only be changed into the low range or large range atoms by the addition of outside energy to them, which has to come from a source that contains more energy than they possess. It can be determined that most of the energy produced in stars comes from the fusion of protons into helium atoms. Since that energy is freed as a result of that reaction, it is obvious that the helium atoms contain that much less energy than the original protons that went into their production. In order to reverse that reaction and change the helium atoms back into free protons, the same amount of energy that was freed in the fusion process must be added back into the helium atoms to allow the freed protons to have their needed energy and some additional energy must be added to actually cause the separation. This means that it would require more energy to reverse the fusion process than was freed by the fusion process. This could only come from some more powerful energy producing process in the star than the fusion process, but such a process would generally be measurable and the star would exhibit a greater energy output than is observed. Moreover, if the midrange atoms were broken back down into individual protons in the stars, the stars would then be able to fuse them again and would, therefore, never burn out, but could endlessly produce energy by the fusion of protons into helium atoms that would then be broken back down into individual protons again so that they could then be fused again. This is also not according to observation or even your theory. If they are not broken down in the stars, they would build up in the stars and continually increase the amount of midrange atoms in the universe, thus causing the things that I have mentioned several times in other comments. The end result would then be the end of all new star production and when all of the existing stars burned out, there would be no stars in existence. The problem is that you are trying to make things work contrary to the natural entropy flow of energy. Although the energy flow is much greater in nuclear structuring than in molecular structuring, the natural entropy one way flow from higher energy structures to lower energy structures is similar in both. This produces both the entropy averaging and dispersion of energy effects of entropy. As an example, a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom will naturally combine into a water molecule and also free some energy, but you need to add extra energy to separate a water molecule back into a hydrogen atom and an oxygen atom again. More energy must be added than was freed when the water molecule was created. The higher energy entities give up some of their energy to lower energy entities during interactions. This reduces the energy content of the higher energy entities while at the same time it increases the energy content of the lower energy entities. They all tend to converge on the center of the range of energy content of all of the atoms in the system that they can interact with. Atomic structuring works in a similar way.
Ak. There are many mathematical models that have been made and applied to the universe. The problem is that for the most part they fail in one way or another in their correlation to observed reality. This is generally because those who generate them have a desire to live in a universe that is in some way different than the one that we actually live in. A math model can be made to describe any type of universe that you might desire the true universe to be, but only one math model can completely model the universe to be as it truly is in all respects. Many math models that are not completely true to observed reality can be applied to represent parts of reality that they do model correctly, of course.
You are right that people should not have to live by the sale of their own theory. Those who produce valid contributions to science should be rewarded for their contribution with enough resources to live and do necessary research, etc. The problem is that the current scientific structure does not tend to reward people for their contributions as much as it rewards people for going through certain hoops of training in certain educational channels and production of concepts that reinforce existing scientific beliefs, etc. In that environment it is easy to see why people try to get funds in any way they can. You are finding it very difficult to live without doing such things. It can be much harder for the young in today's world who may not be able to find any other way to take care of their family. You are to be commended for continuing to make your information free considering your current economic circumstances.
I have already covered why I don't produce math models.
Al. I understand that your theory holds that black holes do not exist. There may be others that read this post who believe that they do exist, however. Since it is not time yet for me to go into information transfer on that subject, I am maintaining a neutral position at this time. Man still needs a deeper understanding of other concepts to be ready to understand that information. I have already covered that I can't provide math models, etc. to you, but only basic concepts. I may be able to provide some of man's observational data on some subjects like I did on the nuclear binding energy last time, if you can't figure out how to look them up on the internet, but I would need for you to give me the specific area you need information about. I n the interest of peaceful coexistence, I try to not give out information that I know is considered restricted or secret, etc. by man's governmental structures, but since much of the information that I am giving goes beyond their level of operation and they do not generally publically express what they are working on, I cannot guarantee that some of it would not be restricted if they understood it in detail. I depend on notification from any such organizations if they believe that any of it is such. I also cannot, therefore, give out to you any restricted or secret information that I become aware of in any way either.
Am. I could give man's data to support everything that I say, but that would make my comments much longer and I assume that you probably already know the data behind much of it, so it would probably be best if you just ask for the data on the things that I mention that man has some information about that I can find on the internet, etc. When it comes to information that I am providing that goes beyond man's current level of understanding, I can only give you the basic concepts on most of it as I have explained earlier. Of course, my time to look up and supply such information to you is limited, so I can't guarantee that I can always find the time in a short enough period after your request to satisfy you. I usually give some information as to what things that the information that I give out can help man to understand about some of man's current observational data, such as explaining why an interaction between two particles can have several possible outcomes and why each outcome has its own specific probability of occurrence that may differ from that of the other possible outcomes, etc. Since I am only giving out basic concepts, however, I may not be able to give the complete method to prove how it can do so. I am only opening up the door. It is for man to go into the next room and gain the information that can be found there.
An. The problem that we have is that you want to describe things to me and have me describe things to you only in a mathematical form and I can only work with you in the form of conceptual structuring. I can describe things to you in conceptual form and work with you when you can do the same to me, but I cannot go into math models, etc. with you for the reasons that I have already expressed previously. One reason that I try to stay away from math models, etc. is that I have found that most people in this world, even those who are well versed in their math model, do not really understand very well what the quantities that are mathematically expressed in their math expressions really mean in terms of the structure and operation of existing entities. As an example, if we look at the expression E=MC^2, most will say that E represents energy, M represents matter or mass, and C represents a constant that for some unknown reason is the same as the speed of light squared, but if I ask what energy or what matter are composed of and why do they act as they do in interactions, etc. I find that most of the time there is very little understanding of such things. Most also have no real understanding of why the constant is needed or why it is equal to the speed of light squared, etc. They may say that observations have shown it to be that way, but observations are the outputs of the underlying structure. It is the understanding of that structure that is needed to answer the hard questions that can then lead to the next deeper level of understanding and integration of knowledge.
Ao. I will try to give references to some of man's observational data and the understandings that support them, but this will likely greatly increase the time that it will take me to respond to your comments.
Your comment on May 24
I hope everything works well for you to allow for you to take care of yourself and any others that you need to take care of also, if any.
Your comments on June 2
I tried to download the paper that you mentioned in your comment, but it got a 403 error that said "Uhoh. Not authorized
This file or directory is not available for viewing
Your URL may be misspelled, or your link may be incorrect.
Try retyping your URL."
I tried it several times and checked the spelling each time, but still got the same error. I noticed that you had included an attachment on your comment to David Pinyana, so I loaded that and it looked like it was probably the paper without the graphs and/or charts, etc. that was in the paper that I could not access. I read it, but many of the math expressions were only partially there. They were cut off on the right side, so they were of no use to me. The paper itself was similar to others I had seen before as far as the subject matter that it covered was concerned. There is quite a bit of repetition and detail about what the theory is supposed to show, but very little actual conceptual information is given as to how it works to show those things. As an example, a description is given about how the light from a rotating galaxy that is viewed from its edge would appear blue shifted if you look at the stars that are traveling toward you in their rotation and red shifted if you are looking at the stars that are traveling away from you as part of their rotation. Since all galaxies except for the one that we are in are very far away, you would likely see most of them as so small that the light that you would see from them would be a blend of the light from the stars that are traveling away from you and those that are traveling toward you. You would, therefore, likely see some light with a blue shifted spectru
