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
