The Fundament of the Fundamentality of What is Fundamental by Paul N Butler

My comment on Scott S Gordon's paper:

Dear Scott,

I read your paper and it has some good understandings and concepts, such as the understanding that we must question everything that we know about time and space and I would add that we must also question everything that we know about the structure of the fields, energy photons, and matter particles that exist in that space and the concept that space could be composed of zero dimensional points. On the other hand, your paper is much like many others that I have seen that fall short of being actually workable because it attributes characteristics to some things that they don't actually possess in reality. You do rightly hold that motion is very important in the structure of the universe, but its use in your theory in the form of spinning zero dimensional points is contrary to the way that motion actually works in reality. First, all motions travel in a straight line in the absence of an interaction with another entity. Secondly, a zero dimensional point cannot spin. It has a point about which to spin, but does not possess any extension to spin about that point. A zero dimensional point cannot move in a zero dimensional world because it has nowhere to move to in any direction. A zero dimensional point could possibly move in a one dimensional world, but it would have to be different in some way from the other zero dimensional points that make up the space on that one dimensional line world. That difference could be that it is in motion, but it could only move in one direction at one motion amplitude rate (velocity) along that line by itself. For it to move in a cyclical manner back and forth in that dimension, so that it would become a stationary motion (particle) it would have to interact with another motion that would periodically reverse its direction of travel or have its direction reversed by interactions with the ends of the dimension, etc. This is because a given motion can only read its direction and motion amplitude information and use that to update its current position information to the next spatial position that it moves to. All that it can change by itself is its current spatial position. Its current direction of travel and its motion amplitude level can only be changed by an external interaction with another entity. This means that even a back and forth cyclical motion requires an interaction at each end of the motion's back and forth travel to reverse the direction of travel of the motion. An interaction requires some form of contact between entities to transfer the information changes between them. The probability of an interaction between two entities is dependent on the potential interaction cross section. The greater the cross section, the greater is the probability of interaction. This is why entities that contain angular motions, such as energy photons and matter particles, are much more likely to produce interactions than those that contain only linear motions, such as sub-energy particles. A zero cross section size results in a zero probability of interaction. This cross section depends on the potential maximum range or distance of motion at the intersection point and the actual size of the interacting entities within that range. A zero dimensional entity has a zero size and, therefore, can have no possible contact surface through which interaction information could be transferred and would, therefore, not be able to interact with another entity. This is why considering matter particles to be point objects makes no logical sense. It is also why believing that they actually can be point objects results in the extension of that idea into other areas of thought such as your concept of space being composed of zero size point objects. You could have a one dimensional entity that could interact with one or more other one dimensional entity(ies) to create a back and forth cyclical motion that would contain it within a specific location range of the dimension to make a form of a matter particle, but it still could not spin because spin is a two dimensional cyclical motion structure that requires at least a two dimensional world to function in. Even in a two dimensional world, a zero dimensional entity could not spin because as mentioned above, it contains a point about which a spin could occur, but it does not possess any extension that can spin about that point. A one dimensional entity could spin in a two dimensional world because its line would provide the extensions necessary for it to spin about its center point. It would still require the continual interactions of at least two motions to generate and continue its spin, however, because a single motion can still only travel in a straight line regardless of how many dimensions exist in the world. Let's say that you want to make a simple one dimensional spatial system using your zero dimensional spatial components. If you take one million of them and align them up against each other in a single line, how long will that one dimensional spatial line be? It is an easy calculation, so I will give it. 1,000,000 objects X 0 size of each object = 0 size of dimensional line. This shows that you can't generate size or distance from objects that contain no size or are zero size objects. This is probably why you quickly change from the point entities to the space between them to define distance. The problem with this concept is that in order for there to be a distance between the points a separate spatial system must already exist to produce the space between the zero dimensional points. Since you end up with a spatial system anyway, it appears that the only reason to envision the zero dimension entities to exist in that space is to support the vacuum energy concepts of quantum mechanics instead of following things back far enough to see that those concepts are also unneeded and unworkable. Of course, it could be that you also believe that motions can't exist by themselves, but are only characteristics of some other non-motion object that only possesses the motions as only an attribute of that object. When you look at interactions in reality at all size scales, you will find that the only thing that is truly conserved in an interaction is the total amount of motion content. This may come as a surprise to you because it appears from your paper that you believe that all of the energy photons came into existence at one time and are all still in existence and by extension I would assume that you also believe that no new energy photons have been created since then. In reality energy photons come into existence and go out of existence all the time around us and we can easily observe this. If you have a car and get in it and start it up, you are starting up an energy photon production device. It not only converts the chemical energy stored in the sub-energy fields of the gasoline molecules into the mechanical or motion energy that propels the car down the road, but also generates large quantities of new energy photons mostly in the infrared frequency region of the spectrum. That is why the engine requires an engine cooling system that circulates liquid antifreeze coolant through a radiator that is cooled by the air flow of a fan to keep it from overheating. When you desire to stop the motion of the car you press your foot on the brake petal which engages four other energy photon generators (one in each wheel) to convert the cars kinetic motion into energy photons. These photons are also mostly in the infrared frequency region. Of course, stars produce very large amounts of new energy photons as a byproduct of fusion, etc. Energy photons are continually going out of existence also. They can be absorbed by electrons in atoms and their motion is converted into the angular motion of the electrons that allows them to move to a higher level in the atom. Energy photons in the visible light spectrum can transfer enough motion to an electron in an atom to allow the electron to completely escape the atom and also have additional kinetic linear motion to allow it to travel away from the atom. Note that the photons are created from motion and also give up that motion when they are absorbed and cease to exist as photons. Matter particles and, therefore, their total mass are also not conserved. When a matter particle and its antimatter particle are allowed to come together at low kinetic energy levels, they are converted into energy photon(s). Also energy photons with a high enough frequency so that they contain enough motion to produce matter particles can produce them if they come into contact with an adequate angular motion component, such as the sub-energy spheres of an atom. This means that they are also composed of motions. Fields are also composed of motions that I call sub-energy particles. Once you can get your head around the concept that all things are composed of motions and once you have analyzed how motions work, it becomes easy to see that all that they require is empty space with positions in which they can be positioned and move from one to the next. One other thing that needs to be mentioned is that there is no time dimension. We live in a motion continuum. The present is the current condition of all motions in existence. The past is the motion conditions that did exist, but no longer exist because the motions have moved on from those conditions to their now present conditions. The future is the motion conditions that will exist, but do not yet exist because the motions have not yet moved into those conditions. From this you can see that there is no past to go back to because it is erased by the continuation of the movement of motions and there is no future to go to either because the motions are where they are now and do not exist in the positions that they will later exist in. This understanding greatly simplifies the generation of structural understanding. This comment is getting long so I will end it, but I will just mention one more important thing. When you consider the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles, a two dimensional rotation will not work. You need a three dimensional enclosed motion to produce it. I hope this helps you.

Sincerely,

Paul

Scott S Gordon's comment back to me on Dec. 23, 2017.

Author Scott S Gordon replied on Dec. 23, 2017 @ 23:06 GMT

Hi Paul -

I have to say you have very diligent in reading my paper - You have made some very important points and I will address the best I can in a post.

You state, "your paper is much like many others that I have seen that fall short of being actually workable because it attributes characteristics to some things that they don't actually possess in reality."

When you really learn my theory - (this is just a very brief essay with very limited math) there is a reason why other papers fall short of reality and why this one does not. You are using your current knowledge and applying it to the entities of spacetime... This is a big no-no... We will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of spacetime in ANY physical manner - My theory reveals why that is so --- and to do so (exposing the entities of spacetime) would break the laws of physics. So in a sense you are right - the entities are not workable "particles" in reality, they are entities that cannot be physically exposed because to do so would break the laws of physics. That is why I call them entities and not particles - All of physics deals with particles and to use the physics of particles and apply them to these entities leads to misconceptions of the entities.

You went on to talk about "motion" of the entity of spacetime -- I cannot answer this in a post and I will only refer you to the first chapter of my book that discussed this in detail.

https://www.amazon.com/GOD-Entity-Gordons-Theory-Everything/

dp/1457538709/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1514069173&sr=8-1&keywo

rds=the+god+entity See the look inside feature and read the first chapter for free.

I agree with some of your statements - there is no place for the spinning point to go... You are being held back by the same thing that holds every physicist back from finding the theory of everything - "The Ruby Slipper Conundrum" - and that is another big explanation and problem.

I would suggest you read these papers to give you an idea of how the hierarchy of energy plays a key role in addressing all your issues regarding dimensions and "particles" existing "in" spacetime as opposed to entities that exist "as" spacetime.

https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimension

s_..._Not_So_Hidden_After_All

https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New

_Math_

This statement you made is something I agree with --"It is an easy calculation, so I will give it. 1,000,000 objects X 0 size of each object = 0 size of dimensional line."

But this statement tells me that you may not have understood how the spinning point entities of spacetime (with their operator fields based on relative spin) collectively create spacetime and the creation of the parameter of distance which was in my essay.

Next item... You state, "This may come as a surprise to you because it appears from your paper that you believe that all of the energy photons came into existence at one time and are all still in existence and by extension I would assume that you also believe that no new energy photons have been created since then. In reality energy photons come into existence and go out of existence all the time around us and we can easily observe this. If you have a car and get in it and start it up, you are starting up an energy photon production device."

But I am not saying that it is these same photons - I'm saying that what we currently know of as energy in our universe was created at that time. When you say "no new energy photons have been created since then" Photon energy (E1 energy) is captured by particles of E2 energy and the energy released in photons again - but the net energy remains the same - the point I made is that the energy we know about (E1 and E2 energy) can never become the energy of spacetime (E0 energy) and the energy of spacetime can no longer create new primordial photons (arising from only spacetime itself) - This is why we have the law of conservation of energy.

It will be a long time for me to get this theory across because people bring their misconceptions from what they know about "particles" and apply them to entities. It is also almost impossible for a person to think outside of the three dimensional box and to understand why there is a three dimensional spacetime in the first place.

In your last statement you said, "When you consider the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles, a two dimensional rotation will not work. You need a three dimensional enclosed motion to produce it. I hope this helps you."

This statement shows that you have not gotten through the Ruby Slipper Conundrum and are using terms and parameters like mass, motion and dimensions which pertain to particle "in" spacetime and not the entities "of" spacetime.

I very much appreciate your comments Paul and the time it took you to respond. It really helps in where I am lacking in getting the theory across - I know you may be thinking I'm just delusional but once you learn the entire theory - there is no way you go back to your current model which for the most part remains the same for E1 and E2 energy. My theory does not change physics, it finishes the model by adding in the missing ingredient required to get past our current theoretical impasse.

By the way - one of the main problems in basic physics is how do particles come to be associated with their energy fields. In a nutshell energy fields are created by the interaction of E1/E2 energy with the E0 energy of spacetime. This is another paper you may be interested in:

https://www.academia.edu/34884714/Dark_Energys_Role_in_Gravi

ty

My comment back to Scott S Gordon on his paper on 29 Dec., 2017

Paul N Butler replied on Dec. 29, 2017 @ 23:31 GMT

Dear Scott,

You are right that I am using my current knowledge, but I am not really trying to apply it to space-time because my current knowledge goes beyond the concept of space-time so that concept is no longer required to explain the structure and functioning of the universe. You are right that we will never be able to directly see, experiment on, or show the entities of space-time in ANY physical manner because it doesn't really exist. When I began to look at man's current scientific structure, I found that the understandings that it generated were very vague in nature. I wanted to know the details of the structure and operation of matter particles, energy photons, and fields, etc., but I found that the current theories could not supply this information. It could account for observed interaction outputs of particle interactions and the probabilities of the occurrence of each output result, but it could not give any good indication of the structure that generated those specific outputs and their probabilities of occurrence, etc. When I began to look at all of the observational information concerning matter particles, energy photons, and fields it became obvious that their structures were all connected to some base source entity. The theories backed up that concept since E=MC^2 essentially says that the mass of matter particles is equivalent to the energy of energy photons. The observational data showed that matter particles and energy photons could be converted into each other. It also showed that they could both be converted into simple angular or linear motions. The linear motions seemed to be the simplest in structure, so I began to research the structure of motion. I found that linear motions are very simple and contain only three information structures. These are the motion's position in space, its direction of travel in space and its motion amplitude (speed) of its travel through space. All of the observational data indicated that the total number of energy photons and matter particles are not conserved because they can be converted into each other, which would change the number of them in the universe, but the total amount of motion in an interaction is always conserved. This meant that motions are the true energy entities and are the only entities that contain the ability of action within themselves as part of their structure. All other entities can only act or interact through the motions that are within them. I then began to determine how fields, energy photons, and matter particles can be built up out of simple linear motions. Simple linear motions that travel in three dimensions at the speed of light or less were ideal as the particles that make up fields. An energy photon also contains a linear motion that always has a motion amplitude of the speed of light and it also contains an additional cyclical motion that travels back and forth at ninety degrees to its direction of travel. If you consider that there is a fourth dimension and also consider that if a field particle (I call them sub-energy particles because they hold the position below that of an energy photon) receives enough motion that it would exceed the speed of light, it exceeds the threshold level above which all motion is transferred to this fourth dimension and if this fourth dimension is very small and is connected to the other three dimensions at ninety degrees like the others are to each other, then the back and forth motion of that extra motion in the fourth dimension as it travels to one end of the dimension and bounces off of the end and then travels to the other end and then bounces off of that end can create the observed frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of energy photons. Matter particles work in a similar, but more complex way. If the fourth dimensional motion exceeds a threshold level it can travel into the fifth dimension. Observational data shows that it does not automatically transfer there though. The presence of an angular motion component, such as that received from the sub-energy field near the nucleus of an atom, is also necessary to allow the transfer into the fifth dimension. The motion contained in the fifth dimension drains back down into the first three dimensions. The interface between the fifth dimension and the lower three dimensions is such that the motion begins to transfer into one of the lower three dimensions and the flow rate linearly increases to a maximum level and then decreases linearly back to zero. When the flow rate in one dimension reaches its maximum level, the flow begins into the next dimension. The flow rate reaches zero in the first dimension just as the rate reaches the maximum level in the second dimension. At the same time the flow begins in the third dimension and reaches its maximum level when the rate reaches zero in the second dimension and flow also then begins again in the first dimension. This cycle continues as long as motion remains in the fifth dimension. When the motion enters into the lower three dimensions from the fifth dimension, it would cause the energy photon to travel faster than the speed of light, but the extra motion is transferred back into the fourth dimension. All that is left of the transfer in the lower three dimensions is the angular component of the motion that continually changes the direction of travel of the photon, so that it takes a three dimensional curved path that encloses upon itself to create a continuous cyclical three dimensional enclosed path. The enclosed path is what we call a matter particle. The great amount of angular motion in all directions creates the matter particle's balanced rest mass effect. When the motion is transferred back into the fourth dimension it will transfer from there back into the fifth dimension if the fourth dimensional wavelength fits properly into the matter particle's enclosed path, such that the proper angular motion component is present to allow the transfer. If it does, the inter-dimensional motion transfer cycle is complete and the matter particle is stable. If it does not fit, the motion completely drains from the fifth dimension through the lower three dimensions and into the fourth dimension. In that case the matter particle's enclosed path disappears and the particle is transformed back into an energy photon, which travels off in some direction at the speed of light. All that is needed to explain everything is motions and a spatial system in which those motions can occupy positions and continually change from one position to the next in and can interact with each other in. This can all be done without breaking the laws of physics, which as you admit your theory requires. I use the word particles to identify the individual entities that exist whether they are field sub-energy particles, energy photons, or matter particles. I am not referring to the wave/particle duality concept in which energy photons are considered to be waves and matter particles are considered to be solid point particles that behave somewhat like little billiard balls with rest mass, etc. Neither of these concepts is true. Both energy photons and matter particles are partially composed of cyclical motion structures that can appear to be wave like during interactions, but they also produce angular motion components that generate mass effects during interactions that would appear to be particle like effects, etc. Such things as wave/particle duality, etc. that cannot be very well understood using quantum mechanics are clearly understood when the underlying motion structures are known. I read the first chapter of your book and I find that some of your logic that you use to justify your concepts appears to be based on assumptions that have no proof of validity. As an example you say that the basic entity must not contain the property of distance, but there is no logical reason that it could not just be the method of introduction of distance into the structure of the system. To put it another way, distance can be a property of the most basic entity and could introduce it into the rest of the structure of the system. The C^0 speed would have a value of one since any number to the zero power equals one. This has no real mathematical significance in the E^0 formula, so I guess you just left it in as a reminder that you are dealing with the lowest energy level compared to the levels where C^1 and C^2 are used. In your example you talk about a spinning point moving toward an adjacent point on one side of it and away from another point on the other side of it. You then say that other spinning points must be added to equal the pressure, so that the point will remain displaced in that new position. I am assuming that you don't actually mean that new points come into existence in those spaces, but only that it would take the amount of energy that those points would provide if they did exist. Is that right? Are you saying that the points can actually move in relation to one another and if so, where does the energy required to do so come from? If the point is to maintain itself in its new position that energy would have to be continually applied to it. This would mean that its source would have to be continuous. It would also seem to me that if a point moved toward another point, it would apply pressure on the point that it was traveling toward and that should then make that point move also in the same direction. In addition to this the point on its other side that it was moving away from should also move toward it because of the reduced pressure that it would experience on that side of it. Are you considering the energy that keeps the points separated from each other to be composed of the motion contained in the spinning points or is it composed of something else? One problem that I see is that in the beginning when there were no dimensions for points to exist in and be spread out or separated from one another in, only one point could possibly exist. If that point somehow began to spin, there would be no other points to create relative spin motion in comparison to it. There would be no place where there could be points that are closer or farther away from the spinning point because that would require at least one dimension to already be in existence that could contain more than one point and allow them to be in different positions from one another in that dimension. How do your account for this in your theory?

You are right that your concept of the structure of space-time does break all of the laws of physics, because you consider that the spin motion at the center of the point would be infinite and would decrease the farther away from the center you get, down to zero at an infinite distance when at all of the structural levels that man has come to understand so far, the rate increases the farther you are from the center and decreases to zero at the center point of the spin. As an example, a point on the surface of the earth at the equator would travel at the rate of about twenty four thousand miles a day, but a point near the north or south axis of spin that is one inch from the center of spin would only travel a little over three inches in a day. Of course, there would not be any place farther out from the center of the point because a point has no extension beyond its center for there to be any place where another point could exist unless the point exists in an already existent spatial system of one or more dimensions. If you have explanations for these things please let me know what they are. When I was talking about the generation of a balanced static mass effect in matter particles I was not talking about space-time level entities, I was talking about the construction of matter particles, such as electrons and protons, etc. I have not seen how you envision them to be constructed yet in your theory because your current paper and the first chapter of your book do not cover that level except a mention that they come from E^2 energy, unless I just missed it somehow. If you can give me that information of how you view matter particles to be constructed that could help me to better understand your theory. As I mentioned above my current model only requires the existence of motions and a spatial system for them to be positioned in, to travel from one position to the next in and to interact with other motions in and it does not require the breaking of the laws of physics, at least those that are truly applicable to reality, such as the laws of motion, etc. My current paper covers the fundamentals of the construction of all eight hierarchical levels of structure, since it is about "What is Fundamental". My other papers on this site's contests give more detailed information in several areas. The internal motions within matter particles entrain sub-energy field particles to travel through them, which generates their internal fields that keep the internal motions of matter particles in an atomic nucleus from interacting directly with each other. There is also an external field structure generated that captures electrons and is the interaction point of elastic interactions and also contains the particles (protons and neutrons) within the nucleus of the atom, etc. I have other questions also, but this is getting long, so I will stop here for now.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Georgina,

I am glad that you understand that there is often much vagueness or imprecision in the language that is used by man in every area of expression. It can be worse in areas where the expression of very complex concepts is involved, such as in physics, etc. When I first began to look at physics, I noticed that the understanding of those involved in the field was often very limited in depth, which makes it even more difficult to give meaningful interpretations of the available data in a conceptual form because of all of the missing pieces. This tends to cause those giving the concepts to gloss over or leave out areas that they do not adequately understand rather than to just admit that they don't yet understand it. I believe that this is done mostly because of the fear that admitting lack of understanding would be looked at as a failure on their part, which could be bad for their career. It would be much better if this was not the case because people would be much more likely to be motivated to work on finding the answers to the unknown or not clearly understood concepts. As it is at this time, the fear of being seen as in error or as a failure results in the continuation of the promotion of concepts long after the observational data indicates that they are in error or completely wrong and need to be changed to new concepts that more accurately conform to the data. At times this has created great delays in advancement in some fields and physics is one of them. Your understanding about how the words light and color are used is very good. It points out a problem in the way that man works on concepts. If someone is working on several different wavelengths or frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (photons), it is often easier to lump them all together under one word than to give the particular frequency range that is being covered at that time. This shortening of the speech that saves time for those who are working together on the same thing and can, therefore, understand the frequency that is being referred to by the speaker or writer in that particular case, has the negative aspect of making it much more difficult for those who do not normally work in that area to understand what is actually meant. Man's current mathematics structure is the most extreme example of this problem. A symbol in math can represent a variable, a constant, or even a complete set of other mathematical expressions, etc. This can make it impossible for a person to get a good understanding of the meaning of such an expression unless he knows someone who is willing and able to take the time to explain it to him. Often when you see such an expression in print, the expression is given without any information about the meaning of the symbols that are contained in it. This can make it very difficult for those who are new to the area, but desire to get a good understanding of it to do so. To me, it sort of sounds like we are talking about the same thing just using different words to express the concepts. When you say "the most important, as in a main ingredient or giving rise to the most things and / or phenomena", you are expressing much of the concept of the foundation and the fundamental(s) that make it up just using a different cooking metaphor. The foundation is the most basic part of the structure. The rest of the structure is dependent upon it and cannot be built without it. It is, therefore, the most important main ingredient from which all other things and / or phenomena arise. I expressed this most fundamental level or foundation as being composed of the fundamentals of basic motions and the spatial system that those motions can be positioned in, can move from one position to the next in, and can interact with each other in. These two most basic things must exist in order to allow any other thing to exist, since all things at all of the hierarchical levels of the universe are composed of motions and are located in that spatial system. The word fundamental is not just used to express the most basic level of the universe, but is often used to express the most basic level of an area or level of thought such as in the concept of the most basic concepts concerning atomic physics or molecular physics (chemistry), etc. Although each of these is only referring to a hierarchical level of the structure of the universe and you could always go back and start at the lowest level and work your way up to the atomic or molecular level, it is usually more time conserving to just start at those things that are directly used to explain the structure of atoms or molecules and not go all the way back to an explanation of the dimensional system and how motions are used to build field particles and matter particles, etc. You can then consider the field particles and matter particles as the most basic or the fundamentals that make up the foundation of atomic physics or the atoms and their associated field structures as the foundation fundamentals of molecular physics. In this way each hierarchical level of a hierarchical structure can be viewed as having its own foundation made up of its own fundamental(s). It is like the door on a car. When you want to understand the structure of the door you don't need to go over the complete structure of the car even though the door is connected to the car and would be of little use to you to get you from one place to another without the rest of the car. You can just focus on the basic materials and structure of the hierarchical level of the door and its hierarchical subassemblies such as the window and locking assemblies, etc. The fundamentals of the structure of the door would include the materials used in its construction and how they are formed and joined together, etc. You would only need to consider the rest of the car when you were designing how it connects to the rest of the car and then only those parts of the car that it connects to. As an example, you would not likely need to consider the structure of the engine even though it is a very important part of the car's structure. That is why I gave the example of the foundation and its fundamental(s) that are the basis or most important constituents at each main hierarchical level of the universe. I probably would not have had to go through all of the other hierarchical levels to bring out that point, but I also wanted to give some more information in those levels about things that I had not yet covered in previous papers, such as the binding structure of molecules, etc. If you already knew that information it might have been somewhat boring to go over it again, but I write the papers to give out information about all levels when I think that it might give some additional insight that I have not yet found to be understood by man at the level that I can provide. It would not be possible to provide all of the information that I can provide in a single paper, so I provide what I can in each paper, so that over time it can all be acquired by someone who reads all of my papers and puts it all together. At the same time I try to cover the topic that the paper is supposed to be about. I think I did both in this paper even though I might have been able to cover the subject of "What is Fundamental" without covering all the levels of the universe. In my defense, I did say in my paper that I would cover how the principal of "What is Fundamental" applies to reality and all of those levels are parts of reality. I hope that I have now justified my actions adequately, so that you will not be too hard on me. I did see your comment on another paper saying that the concept of space-time should be put to rest. I agree completely with you on that because it is not valid because time is not a physical dimension. We will have a hard time convincing many current physicists of that, however, because Einstein is held in such high esteem by them and much of later physics has been built around that theory, so it would require them to completely rethink the concepts of physics from the fundamentals all the way to the top, which, of course, is what is really needed. One big problem is that physics today is really without the most basic foundation and its fundamentals. It is currently at least somewhat understood down to the level of fields, energy photons, and matter particles, but none of the theories that I am aware of (with the exception of mine) addresses what material or substance they are composed of, how they are constructed of that material or substance, and how they operate internally that generates their observed output results from interactions and the reason for the various probabilities of the occurrence of each possible outcome result. Without any conceptual explanation of these things physicists are like blind men trying to determine what an elephant is like by feeling one small part of it. The interesting thing is that the observational information has been available for a long time that could lead people to the understanding of that lowest level, but physicists are so busy trying to fill the holes in the physics dam because that is where the money is, that no one has seen and/or understood the information that is plainly before their eyes.

Sincerely,

Paul

My comment on Karl H Coryat's paper's page on Jan. 5, 2018

Dear Karl,

I read your paper and I agree with the importance of the four pillars of fundamentality that you cover in it. I would only disagree to one degree or another with the examples that you include for each of the pillars.

I agree that as much as possible a fundamental theory should be general and include an overall explanation of the structure of all things that agrees as much as possible with structures at all levels of construction. Since all things at all levels of structure emerge out of the most fundamental layer of structure, it should be expected that there will be structural similarities at all levels. As an example, in my papers on this site I present a theory that proposes that all things in what man generally calls the universe are constructed out of simple motions. Simple motions are, of course, very simple machines that exist at all levels of the structure of the universe. I merely show how they can be used at the lowest structural level to construct fields, energy photons, and matter particles. The fields are constructed of simple linear three dimensional motion entities. Another motion is added to a field entity to transform it into an energy photon, and one more motion is added to an energy photon to transform it into a matter particle. The only other thing that is needed is a spatial system in which the motions can be positioned, can move to the next position, and can interact with other motions, etc. The field entities and matter particles work together to join matter particles together to form atoms, join atoms into molecules, and to join molecules together to form the large scale structures that we mostly work directly with. General relativity gives a possible explanation of how gravity works by considering that entities that possess mass somehow in some unknown way change the shape of the space that surrounds them so that the path of objects that travel through that changed space take a different path than would otherwise be expected, but it does not tell us what causes mass in the first place or what the detailed mechanism of the interaction between mass and space is. Since it proposes that the shape of space can be changed, it implies that space is not just an expanse in which objects can be positioned and move, etc., but is an active entity that must be composed of something. It does not go into what that substance of its construction is or how it operates in interactions with mass to change its shape, etc. Most interactions between two entities that cause a change in one also cause a reciprocal change in the other entity. This brings up the question, if mass changes the shape of space, how is the mass changed by this interaction. Moreover, General relativity does not tell us much about the structure or internal and external operations of fields, energy photons, and matter particles, etc. or even about the structure and detailed operation of the spatial system. I used to think that evolution could produce all life as we know it except the first living creature, but as science has advanced and more of the great complexity of living creatures has become known, I have come to the conclusion that it would not have been possible to do so. The biggest problem that I see is that if you consider the DNA copy error rate and the positive outcome rate from natural selection from those errors to be great enough (productive errors occurring in a short enough time) to produce all of the variations that would need to have occurred to produce all of the living creatures that are alive today plus all that have previously existed, but have become extinct, we should be seeing major genetic changes all around us today because the number of changes would increase exponentially with increases in population, but we don't see such changes. There is also, of course, the problem of how the first living creature came into existence, which is even much more difficult to conceive as occurring in any natural way. I do believe that some evolution has taken place, but it appears to be of too small an amount to be responsible for the diversity of living creatures on earth. If, on the other hand, the rate has not increased by population increase, but has remained the same from the beginning to now and you pick a time between positive selections that is long enough that we would not likely have seen such a change in man's recorded history, say every ten thousand years, and if life started on earth four billion years ago, you would only get four hundred thousand positive changes, which would not be nearly enough to generate all of the different kinds of living creatures that have ever existed on earth.

The theory that I propose is also parsimonious because it requires very few entities to generate the entire universe and only minimal additions to the more fundamental entity are required to generate the next higher level entity. As an example, the most fundamental structural level of field particles only requires the existence of simple motions and a three dimensional spatial structure for them to exist in. The next level of energy photons only requires the addition of one more motion to a sub-energy (field) particle and one more dimension for it to travel in. The third level of matter particles only requires the addition of one more motion to an energy photon and one more dimension for it to travel in. All of the other levels join matter particles together with field structures composed of the field particles to form the atomic, molecular and large scale object structural levels. The result is a very small number of basic mechanisms that join together to form the overall structure of the universe. We live in this motion continuum. The conditions of all motions in the universe that existed, but do not now exist because the motions have moved out of those positions into their current positions make up the past. You can't go back to the past because the conditions that existed then have been erased by the continual flow of motions in the dimensional system. The motion conditions that exist now make up the present, which is the only place that actually exists. The motion conditions that will exist, but do not yet exist make up the future. We cannot go to the future because those motion conditions will not exist until all of the motions have moved from where they are now into those positions. Understanding this frees us from a multitude of nonsense conclusions about the universe's structure because we understand that time is just a measurement of comparison of the relationship between different motions. On the other hand, General Relativity considers time to exist as an entity in itself as a physical dimension. This added nonsense structure is not very parsimonious. Also as you mention, it doesn't cover the mechanism by which mass-energy alters space-time geometry, thus leaving a mysterious unknown mechanism much like newton's mysterious mechanism of force generation. You can always make a theory more parsimonious (containing fewer mechanisms) if you leave out many of the important details of the structure. All living creatures have variation built into their structure. The DNA that contains the instructions needed to build a living creature contains a whole spectrum of possibilities of structure from different eye color and overall body structure to internal differences all of which can give one person an advantage over another under certain external environmental circumstances. When each person is formed only a small subset of all of these possibilities are used in his construction. This is one place where natural selection can work to cause the survival of those individuals who possess the parts of the DNA structural code in them that adapts best to the existing environmental conditions. When conditions change, a different set of individuals who possess different parts of that code will be selected in the same way. This built in diversity is a great aid to the survival of a species. Although many consider the great variation in dogs that has been caused by man's artificial selection to be an example of evolution, it is in reality just a demonstration of the great diversity of construction forms built into the DNA code. From estimates that I have seen, it took man about ten thousand years to create the variations in dogs that are seen today, with no appreciable contribution from positive natural selection of DNA errors, but with intelligence controlled artificial selection of DNA code's built in structural variation capabilities. The resulting variations are still all dogs. No new species has been formed. If the explanation of this is that the changes do not occur that often, then as mentioned above you do not have enough time even in fourteen billion years to generate all of the positive natural selections of DNA errors to generate all of the different living creatures that have ever existed. At ten thousand years per positive selection you would only generate one million four hundred thousand changes. This would not be nearly enough to generate all of the variations necessary to create all of the different creatures that have existed. You could explain that by saying that the rate increases exponentially with population, but then we should now see a large number of changes happening very quickly, but we don't. As you mentioned Darwin removed abiogenesis from his theory, which means that he still left the greatest mystery of evolution and that is how the first living creature came about. As science has progressed and the tremendous complexity of the structure of living creatures, (even the simplest single cell structures) the possibility of some form of natural chance formation of the first living creature has become so small as to make that belief much less probable than the belief that it was created by God.

As this comment is getting large I will have to leave the relational and mechanism-suggestive concepts for another possible comment.

Sincerely,

Paul

My comment to John-Erik Persson on his paper's page on Jan. 10, 2018

Dear John-Erik

I read your paper and I find that in many ways you have a better understanding of structural concepts than many who are committed to trying to fill the holes in existing quantum mechanics and relativity theories. You are correct that what is usually called ether exists and it is composed of particles that do not possess the angular motion that generates the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects that are present in both energy photons and matter particles. These particles are composed of simple linear motions and we live in a sea of them. Most interactions take place between entities that possess angular motions because interactions require an interaction cross-section to allow an interaction to take place. The greater the cross-section size or width is, the greater is the probability of an interaction. Interaction probability is also affected by the path flow and speed of entities that exist within the interaction cross-section. As an example, the cross-section of an atom would be the total size of its external field structure for elastic interactions. Within this structure, the matter particles in the nucleus have a much smaller interaction cross-section. Thus, the probability of an interaction that involves them in any way is much lower than just the probability of an interaction with the atom as a whole. Since sub-energy (ether) particles do not contain an angular motion, they cannot generally interact in the direction of their travel because their interaction cross-section is about zero. They mainly interact with entities that intersect them at an angle to their direction of travel. At the sub-energy particle density that exists in free space, an energy photon will travel a very long distance between such interactions. Each interaction decreases its frequency by a small amount, thus creating a red shift that increases with distance between the points of emission and absorption. Energy photons contain a second motion that operates at ninety degrees to their direction of travel and travels first in one direction and then reverses direction and travels in the opposite direction, both at ninety degrees to the photon's direction of travel in a repetitive cyclical pattern. This motion generates their frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects. The greater the motion amplitude (speed) of this motion, the higher the photon's frequency, the shorter the wavelength, and the greater the dynamic mass effect possessed by the photon. You are right that this motion can have any value above zero, but it is usually generated at a specific value which is determined by a matter particle's amount of motion that is available for transfer to a sub-energy particle to transform it into an energy photon. When the photon is generated by an interaction between an electron in an atom and a sub-energy particle that is part of a high density sphere that is part of the atom's external field, the amount of energy (motion) that is transferred to the sub-energy particle is determined by the difference between the electron's motion in its travel in the low density area between that high density sphere and the other one that it is traveling between and the amount (amplitude) of motion at which the sub-energy particles in that sphere are traveling around the sphere from the sphere's sub-energy input to its output. When an electron is captured by an atom, it travels toward the atom until the attraction of the sub-energy spheres that it has traveled through is equal to the attraction of the spheres that it has not yet traveled through based on its mass. Its motion toward the atom then comes to a zero rate or motion amplitude in that direction and it then travels around the atom at the same velocity and direction as the sub-energy particles in the high density sub-energy sphere's that it is traveling between. Since it is traveling at the same velocity as the sub-energy particles it comes into close approximation to in the spheres, it cannot interact with a sub-energy particle to transfer motion to it. If it then receives added motion from the absorption of an energy photon, as an example, it will then move up and travel between two high density sub-energy spheres that are farther from the center of the atom. In this position it will travel faster than the sub-energy particles in those two spheres. This will apply pressure on the sub-energy sphere, such that the probability of an interaction with a sub-energy particle in the sphere is greatly increased. When it does interact with a sub-energy particle it transfers its excess motion to the sub-energy particle and returns to its mass based stability point. The motion that is transferred to the sub-energy particle causes it to try to travel faster than the speed of light, but the excess motion over the speed of light exceeds the threshold level beyond which any extra motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion. This extra motion travels into the sub-energy particle's fourth dimensional motion and generates its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects, thereby transforming it into an energy photon. Since all of the atoms of the same mass contain identical sub-energy fields, the amount of motion transferred to a sub-energy particle from an electron in the atom's outermost electron level when it goes from the next higher sub-energy sphere to its normal mass balanced sphere will be the same for all interactions of that type. This means that for a given type of atom the energy photon, thus produced will always have the same frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effect. So as you said it is not that a newly created energy photon could not possess any frequency, it is just that in a given type of atom the amount of motion that an electron can transfer to a sub-energy particle to transform it into an energy photon is fixed by the internal structure of the atom's external field. This does not give all of the possible photon creation results because, for example, an electron can possibly receive enough extra motion due to some interaction that it moves up two or more spheres, etc. in which case it could transfer more motion to a sub-energy particle to create a higher frequency photon, but even in that case all electrons that went down the same number of spheres in that type of atom would create photons with the same frequency, etc. An energy photon is a self-contained entity that carries all of its motions within itself, so it does not need to have a medium to travel through. As mentioned above when an energy photon interacts with a sub-energy particle it gives up some of its motion to that particle, which results in the lowering of its frequency. At the same time the sub-energy particle that receives that motion can be changed into a lower frequency photon. This tends to build up a background level of these lower frequency photons over time. If an energy photon's frequency is high enough, so that it contains enough motion to produce a matter particle and it comes into contact with an adequate angular motion component, such as the sub-energy fields near the nucleus of an atom, it can transfer some of that motion into the photon's fifth dimensional motion, which causes it to be transformed into a matter particle by causing the energy photon to take a three dimensional curved path that encloses back upon itself, thus creating a three dimensional cyclical enclosed path through which it travels continuously. This path can, of course, move or be stationary and the great angular motion of the photon as it travels that path generates its static mass effect. As the photon in the matter particle travels around this path it entrains sub-energy particles to travel through it. This generates the matter particle's internal energy field. This field flows from an input on the path to an output on the other side of the path. The input and output follow the photon as it travels around the path, so they are continually changing their locations on that path. This field is responsible for keeping the internal motions of one matter particle in the nucleus of an atom from interacting with the internal motions of other particles and would be identified with the strong force in most current theories. As the sub-energy particles flow through the matter particle the flow is modulated by the photon's fourth dimensional frequency/wavelength motion from a zero level linearly up to a maximum level and then back down to a zero level. This cycle continues. The result is the creation of concentric sub-energy particle spheres that vary in density linearly from a zero flow level to a maximum density flow level and then back down to the zero level as you travel outward from or inward toward the matter particle. This is the matter particle's external field structure. It is responsible for the capture and control of electrons and the binding of matter particles together into atoms. The matter particles in the nucleus of an atom are contained within the atom within the innermost high density sub-energy sphere. This containment would also be considered part of the strong force while the electron containment and elastic interactions with low enough kinetic energy that only involve the external fields, etc. would be likely considered to be connected to the weak force. I tried to cover much information in this post, so it may be hard to follow, but my papers in the contests on this site are somewhat less intense and give more details of how it all works and may answer any questions that you may have. If not I will try to answer them if I can. I will stop now as this is getting big.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Joe,

We have conversed several times in past contests. I usually try to address every part of your comment and your return comment mostly just repeats your comment to me without giving me any new more detailed information about what you said that might give me a better understanding of what you are actually saying and meaning in your comment. This time I will try a different approach to see if you actually desire that people understand what you are saying. In your comment you mention "one single infinite dimension". Describe to me what that dimension is and how it is structured and how it works, etc.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear John-Erik,

I saw your comments to me both on your page and also on my page and that they were a little different from each other. I will just make a single comment that covers both of them.

My current paper starts out covering the meaning of the word fundamental because that is what the contest topic is about and I do start out mentioning the vagueness of man's abstract communication methods. After that, however, I give examples of the fundamentals of each of the eight main hierarchical structural levels of the universe. This gives overall beginning or fundamental level information about them, but does not go into great detail about any of them. For a deeper look at the nature of time, I would recommend my first paper from 2008 "The Physical Nature of Time" and for a more detailed description of the physical structure of field particles, energy photons, and matter particles, I recommend my 2015 paper "The Truth is that the Connection Between Physics and Mathematics is Not at all Mysterious". I generally have added some new information to all of my papers. I added as much as I could in each paper while also trying to stay within the general topic that the paper is supposed to address, so my other papers also add information not contained in the ones mentioned above. The comments also contain some information that is not in the papers. In the current paper and the previous one, I have copied all of the comments that I made on the papers of others and all of their comments to me on their papers onto my paper's page to make it easier for someone to get all of that information also. On the older papers you would have to look through the other contestants papers to find such information, so that would be more difficult, but could be of importance if you were looking for some specific information that was not covered in the papers. While I am here, I will try to answer as many questions as I can, but there are some areas that I will not go into at this time, so you would have to ask the questions and I would then answer those that I can. I hope that will help you to find the information provided so far in the easiest way possible.

Sincerely,

Paul

John-Erik's comment to me on his page on Jan. 12, 2018

Paul Butler

Thanks for making it more clear. I agree to your opinions regarding the relation between physics and mathematics. Mathematics is not fundamental to physics itself, but to our understanding and knowledge of it. It is good that you try to define what fundamental means. Thanks.

Best regards from _____________________ John-Erik Persson

Dear John-Erik,

I am not sure that you do understand my concept of the proper functional structure of science in general and in this case specifically in physics. There are two very important structures that are both required to maximize progression of advancement and at the same time enrich the level of understanding to a great enough depth that the likelihood of following erroneous paths that lead to dead ends or cause great delays in advancement will be avoided. The first is the development of conceptual understanding. An example of this that is currently needed and I am trying to provide for man here is to conceptually fill in an area of physics that has been mostly avoided in recent times and that is an understanding of the structure of the lowest known layer of the universe's structure, which is the level of fields, energy photons, and matter particles. For the most part current theories do not address what substance these entities are composed or made of, and how that substance is structured in each of these entities to cause them to generate their observed interaction behaviors. Observations and man's current theories both indicate that these entities can be transformed into each other and that they all can also be transformed into simple angular and linear motions. It is obvious to me and I believe it should also be so to anyone who has any understanding of these entities that the simplest of these entities is a simple linear motion. When I looked into it, I found that field (sub-energy) particles, energy photons, and matter particles can all be constructed using just simple motions. Once this basic level of understanding is gained it can then be expanded to conceptually combine these entities together to get a better understanding of higher level structures such as the structure of the internal and external fields of matter particles and how those fields are used to capture and contain electrons in the external field and contain the particles in the nucleus within the atom while at the same time keeping the internal motions of those particles from interacting with each other, etc. This can then be expanded to understand how atoms bind together into molecules and molecules bind together into large scale objects, etc. Although it should be obvious that this conceptual stage of development has great power to allow the development of a deeper level of understanding of the universe, the other structure is then needed to bring out the details of the operation and interoperation of these entities at all levels of structure. That structure is mathematics. When new concepts are developed, they generally lead to the need to make new observations to confirm them and to increase the depth of understanding of those concepts. Math is greatly involved in making and quantifying these observations. Once the quantity of the new observations is adequate, math models can be constructed to show the observed relationships between the entities seen in these observations. The math models can indicate new observations that should be made based on extrapolations of the patterns of current behaviors into extensions of variables, etc. that would predict new outcomes under different conditions than those currently observed. My point is that both conceptual understanding and the application of math to deepen and develop the concepts into useable forms are equally important and both are required for prolonged advancement in understanding. As advancement continues both the conceptual and math models usually need to be modified to conform to new observational data and deeper level conceptual and math processing. When the system is functioning properly each is a check on the other's developments to be sure they both continue to adhere to reality. The current problems in physics and some other areas of science stem mostly from a lack of conceptual development. To a great extent this is due to the elevation in the minds of people of the importance of math structuring while at the same time a belief has developed that conceptual structuring is of less importance and is less accurate than math. Those who believe such things do not understand the different realms of development that the conceptual and math structures apply to. The conceptual structure applies to the overall understanding of things. It gives the big picture of how things are made and how they work individually and together with each other. Math is more usefully applied to developing the details of the structures, their operations, and interactions. It works best to focus on the smaller and smaller details while concept structuring works to put those details together into an overall structural understanding that encompasses all of the details into a workable whole picture of the structure of things. When the conceptual level is left out, there is no guidance as to what outputs from the math level are parts of reality and what parts are complete fictions. People tend to go off in all directions believing all of the outputs to be true because after all, the math model god has declared it to be so by its outputs. In reality both the conceptual and math levels can be wrong or incomplete and need modification. When the system is working properly they both work to correct each other's errors. I am attempting to correct current errors that are presently considered to be true valid physics by introducing a conceptual model of what is currently believed to be the most basic level of structuring, which is that of the structure of fields, energy photons and matter particles in the same way that past introductions of conceptual models of molecular structure and later of atomic structure were guides to those of earlier times. I hope that helps. Have you had a chance to look at the papers that I recommended to you in my previous comment? If so, what do you think about them?

Sincerely,

Paul

Scott S Gordon's comment to me on his paper's page on Jan. 14, 2018

Hi Paul,

You have a lot of questions for me to answer... I can't post my entire book... I can refer you to this paper which gives a brief manner in which particle contain energy proportional to c^2.

https://www.academia.edu/27987699/_Why_Cant_the_LHC_Find_New

_Math_

I can also tell you that the energy of spacetime is real and it is important. The energy field of particles are created by the interaction of E1/E2 energy with the E0 energy of spacetime. In addition gradients in the E0 energy of spacetime is responsible for the outward force on all matter, so in this regard the energy is real.

There is no constant creation of New energy - the displacement of GOD entities in the examples I gave were purely "what if's" and cannot happen in actuality. These examples were given to derive mathematics of E0 energy being proportional to c^0.

In addition you throw around the term "dimension" as if you are physicist thinking that you know what a dimensions is and how a dimension is created... You should read this paper on dimensions:

https://www.academia.edu/30755282/Hidden_Dimensions_..._Not_

So_Hidden_After_All

All the best!

Scott

My reply to Scott S Gordon's comment to me on his paper's page on Jan. 14 2018

Dear Scott,

I read your papers and first let me say that I believe that we hold one concept in common although it is expressed somewhat differently in our presented theories and that is that one of the two most basic entities in the observable universe is motion. Because you are locked into the natural creation viewpoint, it is understandable that you feel the need to consider the construction of the spatial system as the other most basic structure to explain the total construction of the universe. I, on the other hand, have decided to limit my current level of information transfer to man here to the construction of the next lower level of hierarchical structure of which man currently does not have a workable conceptual understanding, which is the level of matter particle, energy photon, and field particle structuring. I am doing this primarily for two reasons. First, an understanding of the construction of these entities will clear up many of the quantum and relativity nonsense beliefs, such as that things cannot happen unless they are observed, that the various particle interaction results and there probabilities of occurrence are due to some mysterious random quantum energy fluctuations of spatial vacuum, the concept of multiverses, and the idea from relativity that time is an existent dimension, etc. Once these erroneous concepts are eliminated, the math becomes much simpler and a complete understanding of the universe down to the level of the spatial system that is designed to provide the positions that basic motions can be on, can move from one to another on, and can interact with each other on and the basic motions that inhabit that spatial system can then be more easily understood. I, therefore, start with the existent spatial system and basic motions as the two most basic structures presented in my theory. I leave the mechanisms behind the structure of the spatial system that produces what we perceive as space and the outputs of the motions that are contained in that mechanism that we perceive as basic motions for a later information transfer when man has first been able to understand the levels down to that mechanism. The second reason that I do not provide that information at this point is that man in this world would like to think of himself as god with power over everything and, therefore, would not readily accept that there is someone much greater than him who has constructed the universe and everything in it. The problem is that when you go beyond the simple level of the spatial system and its basic motions to what generates and maintains that system and those motions, the complexity expands outward in the same way that it expands in the other direction when you go from the simple motions to the construction of sub-energy particles, energy photons, matter particles, all of the different atoms that can be constructed of them, all of the great multitude of different possible molecules that can be constructed from the atoms, and the innumerable large scale objects that can be made of them, etc. It is like figuring out after a lot of observation and then putting those observations into a coherent understanding of your world, that you are really just the output images on a very large television screen or computer monitor except that instead of just being made of a light output, you are also made of matter particle and sub-energy field outputs and in three dimensions instead of just the two dimensional TV screen. The organizations of these outputs as they appear in your world require a behind the scenes complex mechanism in the same way that the television also requires to display its image and in addition to that a more complex information structure is needed to generate the actual entities that appear on the screen and to update them as a result of their interactions, etc. The problem is that you have no way to observe those behind the scenes mechanisms. If, on the other hand, the one who made the television and the other needed mechanisms would write a book that gives some of the details of their construction and would then display that book on the screen, so you could read it, you might be able to get some understanding of it. That is what has actually happened, but that is for the next level of understanding, which most people would not currently be able to accept, because of their naturalist outlook on life that prevents them from considering or looking into such things.

To get back to your paper, you either have a problem of lack of understanding of how things work or you have not developed the language to properly express them. First you say that the void contains a very large number of points. If that is the case then these points must be existent entities of some nature. You say that they can possess the property of containing motion. This suggests that in order to contain a motion within themselves they must be composed of some substance that can interact with a motion and contain it. You do not address what the points are composed of, which makes an unanswered more basic concept yet to be developed. You say that the motion contained within the point is in the form of a spin. Basic motions continually move from one point to the next. This requires an existent spatial system of at least one dimension for them to travel in. A spinning motion is a cyclical motion that requires at least a two dimensional spatial system to exist in. This is because a spinning motion is the result of continual interactions between two or more motions acting at directional angles to each other. If the spin that you are talking about does not conform to the laws of motion then you should not use that analogy, but instead make a new word and then define it to describe the details of what is actually happening and also the same thing about the point if it does not conform to the current definition of a mathematical point. If all of these points exist in the void, it seems that the void that you are talking about does not conform to the basic understanding of it as being an empty spatial system. You could also consider the void to be completely nothing, but nothing could not contain anything even zero dimensional points that possess properties such as the ability to spin, etc. Without the existence of any dimensions, the only thing that could exist is just one point because if any more points existed they would create a one dimensional world in that a motion could travel the distance that would be created between them from one point to the other. In reference to a primary spinning point, you talk about the surrounding or adjacent points. In a zero dimensional world, there could not be any other points next to or surrounding the point because there would be no possible positions in existence that were next to or surrounding the point without the construction of at least one dimension to provide positions for those points to exist in. One point could not be relatively closer or farther away from another point without forming a distance between them. You say "Relative motion of each surrounding point represents a circular path". A path is a way that can be traveled from one place to another, which is essentially a distance that can be traveled. A circular path requires the existence of at least two dimensions because a circle is a two dimensional object. When you talk about a god entity's energy field, what is that energy field composed of? Is it something that would exist as part of the entity even if it is not spinning or is it either the spinning motion itself or somehow caused by that motion? When you talk about the existence of an infinite energy field across a god entity's diameter are you saying that the field contains an infinite amount of energy? If the entity is a zero dimensional point it would seem that its diameter would be zero also. When you talk about E2 energy you say "is associated with a particle that displaces the surface of the water medium in a circular motion of the water. This constant circular motion of the water is required for the creation of E2 energy contained in particles". What is the water that you are mentioning and since this is at the scale of entities that exist in space-time and not as those existing as space-time it would seem that their motions should conform to the observed laws of motion, so how is the circular motion generated and maintained in them? I am assuming that the circular motion is what you consider to be the source of the matter particle's rest mass. A normal circular motion is a two dimensional entity. It can exist in a three dimensional object, but it does not produce a three dimensionally uniform mass effect. As an example, If you have two spheres of the same size that are rotating at the same speed in the same direction (counterclockwise), such that the axis of one is parallel to the axis of the other and they move toward each other with the center of one heading directly toward the center of the other and then they interact with each other, the interaction side of one will be moving in one direction that is perpendicular to its direction of travel in one direction while the interaction side of the other will be traveling in the opposite direction in a line that is also perpendicular to its direction of travel. This will cause a mass effect that will tend to cause the spheres to repel each other. If, on the other hand, you bring them together, such that the axis line of one is aligned with the axis line of the other and they are both rotating in the same direction, when they come together their rotation does not introduce a mass effect because the rotation does not exist relative to one another. It requires a three dimensional motion to maintain an equal static mass effect in all directions around the matter particle.

You may have a good point, but it is counterproductive to use examples that exhibit behaviors that are opposite to those that you are trying to convey. It would be better to make up new words for the new objects or concepts and then describe their behaviors as meticulously as you can while at the same time keeping the explanations of your concepts as simple as possible. I will stop for now and wait for your reply to clarify to me about these things.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Dizhechko,

I noticed that in the comments on your paper's page, people seem to address you as Boris. Is that what you prefer? If so, I will do that next time.

I did have some trouble with translation of your paper, but I think I got some of it figured out. We both agree that current physics over emphasizes abstract math modeling that is often not as connected to observed reality as it should be, which has resulted in the belief in and development of many observationally groundless concepts, such as the idea that things cannot happen unless they are observed, that time is a physical dimension, and the proposed existence of a multiverse, etc., while at the same time completely ignoring the development of things that are clearly observed, such as what the fact that matter particles, energy photons, fields, and simple angular and linear motions can be transformed into each other, tells us about their internal compositions and operations. It is obvious that they all must be composed of the same basic material in order for any one of them to be transformed into any other one of them. This basic material must be used in a different way in each of them to allow each to have its own specific properties that differ in many ways from the observed properties of the others. After analysis I have come to the conclusion that the simple linear motion is the basic material of all of them and have then shown how each can be constructed out of simple motions, such that each of them generates its individual observed properties of action and interaction.

Concerning New Cartesian Physics, first I noticed that you refer to Rene Descartes as she. This may have just been a translation error, but in case it is not, I thought it good to mention that Rene Descartes is a man, so, he, would be more appropriate. Rene is more often used as a woman's name. In fact I have a daughter whose middle name is Rene, but it is apparently also used in some cases as a male name. I have found that all that is needed to explain the construction of the universe is motions and the empty space of a dimensional system for them to be positioned in, to move from one position to the next in, and to interact with other motions in, so I do not believe that space and matter are the same thing as Descartes apparently believed. I believe that fields are composed of simple linear motion particles, that an energy photon is composed of a simple linear motion that travels at the speed of light that is joined to another motion that is structured such that it generates the photon's frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects, and a matter particle is composed of an energy photon that contains an additional motion that causes it to take a curved enclosed three dimensional path. The great angular motion generated by the photon as it travels this path generates the matter particle's rest mass. With the use of the fields composed of the field particles; space can actually be a vacuum. There is no need for such things as vacuum pressure, etc. Not only can the material and its associated structure of the basic particles be easily understood, but the structure of the strong and weak forces, etc. and how they function in matter particles, atoms, and molecules, etc. can also be understood in this way. My papers on this site's contests explain the details. I have seen many currently new theories that propose the use of rotation in one way or another usually to generate vacuum pressure or a mass effect, etc., but a rotation is a two dimensional construct, so it does not create a balanced mass effect in all three dimensions. It requires a three dimensional motion to create a balanced mass effect in all directions around a matter particle. You say that in matter the rotation is more complex than the rotation of the vacuum, so it may be that you already know this and have incorporated a three dimensional motion into your theory. Another problem with concepts that use rotations is that a rotation generally requires a continual interaction between two motion sources. In the absence of an interaction a motion always travels in a straight line in one direction at a speed determined by its internal motion amplitude or content. In order for everything to move in a circle at larger scales you would have a similar problem.

When you say that physical space is the body of God, you are closer to being right than most physicists that I have come into contact with who don't even believe in the existence of God. The only place that we can look to get an understanding about where God is in relation to his creation is his word, which is usually called the Holy Bible. It usually contains both the Old and New Testaments. First, since God created the universe, he had to have some place outside of the creation in which he existed before he made the creation. From the scriptures it looks like God may have completely filled that place. This would require that he would first have to evacuate or remove part of himself from an area in which he would then create the universe. God made the creation by the part of him that is called the Word. The Word later came into the world in the form of a man as God's Son and in John 1:18 it says" No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." When God made man in his image, he took a rib out of Adam and used it to make Eve, who is the glory or image of man. It may be, therefore, that God also took a part of the motion that he is made of, that would be a relatively equal part of him as the amount of a man that a rib would be, out of his bosom and used it to make the creation. The space in which he created the world must be inside of him because in Acts 17:28 it says about God "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;". Even though the creation is made of some of his motion and is located within him, he has separated it from him by the empty space that he made within himself to contain it. This is necessary because he says that he is a consuming fire. His motions are so great that they would quickly burn up the whole creation if it was not separated from him in that way. When he returns at the end of the world he says that the heavens and the earth will be burned up. In the Revelation 20:11 when God returns for the final judgment it says "And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. That is what will happen when he comes back in to the space he has evacuated to reclaim his motion that he took out of himself to make this creation. This means that the creation is in space that he was in, but is not in now and it is made of motions that were parts of him, but are not now because he removed them from him to use to make the creation. This first creation is constructed in eight parts. The lowest four parts make up the earth. The next three parts make up the heaven and the eighth part is a place that God says is high above the highest heaven where Jesus ascended to after his resurrection and is only accessible to God the Father and Jesus Christ, (the Word of God). God tells us that he is composed of three parts. In 1 John: 7, God says, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." In Romans: 1, 19 - 20, God says, "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" This means that God has made images of himself in the structure of the creation. Man is made in God's image and a man is also composed of three parts. First is his spirit, which is the image of the Father. It produces his intents or purposes that he needs or desires to fulfill. The second part is his soul, which is the image of the Word. It is able to receive and understand the spirit's intents and can also generate thoughts that the parts of the body can understand. It sends those thoughts to the body, which is the third part of the man and is the image of the Holy Ghost. The body translates those thoughts into the motions needed to fulfill the spirit's intents. In God, the Father is the spirit. He is called the invisible God and ultimately controls all things through the Word. The Word is the mediator between the Father and the Holy Ghost. This is needed because as God says in Isaiah: 55, 8 - 9, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. This is why Jesus (the Word) said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me." In John: 14, 6. We do not have the ability to understand and communicate directly with the Father. The father has, therefore, provided the Word to be the mediator between him and us. The Holy Ghost is his body, which is composed of all of those of man who have received the Father and the Word into themselves to live in them and control them in a way similar to the way that our spirit and soul controls our bodies. The reason that God made this creation is to build a body for himself to live in. He made us with the intent that we become members or parts of his body in which he will live without end in a new and better creation after the end of this creation, which will occur after he has made all of his body's members and, therefore, he will no longer need this creation. The heaven is composed of three parts or heavens. It is made in God's image. The first and lowest heaven directly controls things in the earth and is ruled by beings called the Powers. It is an image of the Holy Ghost. The second heaven is the mediator between the first and third heavens and is ruled by beings called the Principalities. It is the image of the Word. The third heaven is the highest heaven and is ruled by beings who are ministering spirits called angels who minister to or serve God directly. God's throne is in this heaven and there is also a sea of glass in the middle of it called paradise where the spirits of those who are God's body members go when they leave their bodies when their bodies die. It is a temporary holding place where they can be before God's throne until Jesus returns to earth to rule there for a thousand years. He brings those spirits with him when he comes and they are then resurrected to live with Jesus there for that thousand years. The third heaven is an image of the Father. God passes his intents down to the angels who are also spirits that can understand them. The angels pass his intents down to the principalities who translate them into the language of the powers and the powers then carry out his intents in the earth. There are four powers. The earth is a two level structure. First there is a behind the scenes framework structure that is hidden to us that is composed of four parts. There is one part for each of the powers and they are used in the generation of the four spatial dimensions of earth. They control the structure of the spatial dimensions that hold the motions that generate the motions that we perceive to exist in our universe. Each of the four parts is in the form of a giant wheel. Ezekiel was allowed to see them and he said they were so high that they were dreadful. They have eyes (sensors) round about them. Inside of them, they contain what is called a deep that is composed of what is called waters. When motions are entered into the waters they move around the wheels on the surface of the waters. The motions are sensed by the sensors (eyes) and this causes motions to be generated in our universe. The motions in the wheels do not seem to dissipate or spread out like would likely happen to motions in water in our world, so our water is only an image of these waters, which are much better than our water. It appears that they have zero resistance to the motions and no interactions between motions occur within the wheels. Interactions only occur in the output motions that make up our world and the changes are then fed back into the wheels to change the motions there. In the scriptures there are mainly two people who were allowed to see these things. The first was Ezekiel who saw them looking up at them from below on the earth and the second was John who was taken up into heaven and saw them from that perspective. The first three wheels control the first three dimensions that we are familiar with in our everyday lives and the fourth wheel controls the fourth dimension that controls the motion that creates the frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects of energy photons and matter particles. The motion that controls the three dimensional curvature of the photons in matter particles to cause them to travel in a three dimensional enclosed curved path may be located in the fifth part of the creation, which is the first heaven or it may have to do with the waters above the firmament that are mentioned in Genesis: 1. With the establishment of this level of background information we can now go there and gain a better understanding of what God is telling us there. Genesis 1: 1 - 5, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Note that God mentions the creation of the heaven and the earth, but then begins talking only about the earth. The earth was made as a spatial system to contain things with forms or shapes, but it was void or empty. The first action that God took was to add motions to the waters by moving upon the face of the waters. Notice that it says that it was God's Spirit that added those motions. They would have generated the simple motions in our universe that I call sub-energy particles of which fields are composed. The field particles are used to create the matter particle's internal and external fields that allow them to be joined together into atoms and allow the atoms to be joined together into molecules and to allow the molecules to be joined together into the large scale objects that make up our observable world, but they are invisible to us just as the Father is and man cannot yet observe and individual sub-energy particle in any way. They are the image of the Father who introduced them into the earth mechanism. It is evident that the Word of God created the light that is an image of him. This would have been by the addition of motions to the fourth dimensional motion of some of the sub-energy (field) particles to give them the wave like properties that transformed them into energy photons. Energy photons contain these two motions joined together into one entity in the image of the joining together of God the Father and the Word into one being as Jesus said "I and my Father are one". It is interesting that when we speak, sound comes out of our mouths in the form of waves, so God was giving scientific information about the properties of light photons long before people knew of the wave effects of light. The Word is called the light of the world in several places in the scriptures. Next it says that God divided the light from the darkness. This would be all three parts of God working together. This would have been the addition of another motion to some of the light photons to cause them to take enclosed three dimensional curved paths that would transform them into matter particles. They would then become dark because the energy photon contained in them would be confined to the matter particle's enclosed path. In matter particles these three motions are all joined together into one entity in the image of the Father, The Word, and the Holy Ghost who are all joined together into one being. It would represent God the Father and the Word living in and through his body members to fulfill his intents in the world, which is the ultimate result of his intent for making this world. Genesis 1: 6 - 8, "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." Here God is still making changes to the behind the scenes structure of the earth that we cannot observe. He divides the waters of the earth mechanism into three parts. They are the waters under the firmament, which God uses to make the land and water that make up the planet earth as we know it, the firmament itself, which God uses to hold the stars and the sun and the moon, and the waters above the firmament. God does not tell us what the waters above the firmament are used for. As you can see, our planet and all that we can see as our universe are all parts of the earth. This includes the earth's heaven. So if you ever meet someone from another planet you can still truthfully greet him by saying "Greetings earthling" and they may need to have the gospel preached to them so that they can be saved just like us. The three other heavens are above and control the earth framework mechanism that generates our universe as its output. I hope this helps.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Boris,

You did not tell me of your preference, so I used Boris this time. Let me know if that is not ok with you. Numbers and quantities are used by God in the creation. For the most part math is man's abstract language used to work with them, so I don't believe that math is of Satan, but like all of the parts of man's abstract language system it can be used either for good to aid in the understanding of God and his creation or for evil to lead people away from understanding of God and his creation. God did not say that all knowledge was bad or evil for man to have. Man was only forbidden to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once they understood what was good and what was evil, they would know that they were to obey God and to disobey God would result in the penalty of death, which is why God commanded them to not get that knowledge because he knew that their disobedience would result in their deaths. Other knowledge was not forbidden. Math can either model reality, a complete fiction like in video games, or anything in between that is part true and part false. Having a good conceptual understanding based on observation can help to keep the math models based on reality. As an example, if you understand that total motion content is always conserved in interactions, you won't believe a math model that is based on time as a physical dimension in which you could go back into the past or forward into the future because in order for that to work a complete new copy of the universe would have to be made every time some motion in the universe changed to a new position in space in order for there to be an existent past to go back into before that motion moved. This would be a violation of motion (energy) conservation because it would require a new creation of all of the matter particles, energy photons, and field particles in the universe and even a complete copy of the spatial system to make the copy before it was changed by the movement of the motion to its new position. If you went back in time and changed anything, it would either have to start a new alternate progression of copies of the complete universe from that point or changes would have to somehow be propagated through all of the copies that had been made from that point to the point that you went back in time to change all of the subsequent time to incorporate the changes that you made and all of the other changes that might have occurred as a result of the changes that you made. This would require a complex processing system that could not come about in any natural way and since God does not mention such complexities and observations don't support them either, it would not be reasonable to assume that they exist. My purpose is not to sow discord, but rather to sow the truth that if believed would eliminate discord. If space is matter and matter is space then there is an unknown or undefined substance that space/matter is composed of that contains the rotation motions that you mention. Without knowing what this substance is, the theory would still be incomplete lacking the most important basis upon which everything is built up upon. In addition to that a continual rotation must be supported by the interaction of two motions with one of them working at an angle to the other, because in the absence of an interaction, motions always move in a straight line. What those motions are and how they work would also need to be explained for the theory to have any possibility to be true. As I mentioned in my previous comment, there would also be the problem that a simple rotation would not produce a static mass effect in the matter particles that was the same in all directions around the particle, but observational data suggests that it is the same in all directions. How is the structure of energy photons explained in your theory? I find it much simpler for space to just provide empty places where motions can be positioned, can transfer to the next position, and can interact with other motions. Making space an active entity that contains complex cyclical motions in it adds unnecessary complexity. It is much simpler to make fields from simple linear motion entities, to construct energy photons by adding one more linear motion to a field particle, and to make matter particles by adding one more motion to an energy photon.

You are welcome. It can sometimes be necessary to simplify a conceptual description in order to gain its acceptance, but there are a couple of possible downsides to that, which are that you might find someone who understands that it won't work properly in the simplified form and you could look to be lacking in understanding, which would hinder acceptance and if it does get accepted because people could accept the simplified form, you must then change the form to the way that things really work to establish the true workable form, which again could cause you to lose credibility because it can look like you didn't fully understand it in the first place.

I can understand your problem of lack of time to communicate, but with me the rating is not important because I would not expect to win the contest because I am giving out information that is well beyond man's maximum acceptance threshold. I am not entering the contests to win, but just to disseminate information that is important to man's advancement ability. With me, the problem is that once the papers come out, they come out in a large quantity in a short time, which makes it difficult to look at and comment on all of them that I believe might help the contestant in some way to understand how things really work. As I mentioned in my previous comment to you, I believe that space is not God's body.

I will post this on both my page and yours, so I can have a convenient copy of all of my comments to others and all of the other's comments to me in one place.

Sincerely,

Paul