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

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

John-Erik Persson's comment to me on his paper's page on Jan. 11, 2018

Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 12:09 GMT

Paul Butler

I thank you very much for good words about my essay. Yes, i agree that the ether is a very important and fundamental concept together with space and time (not spacetime).

I will take look at your article. It appears to regard uncertainties in language. It seems interesting.

Thanks, and good luck _______________ John-Erik Persson

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 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

Dear Boris,

I can understand your desire to get the best review that you can on your paper, so that you could likely win a prize in the contest, so I won't ask you to give me a return comment, so that you can devote your time to trying to win the contest, but I feel the need to respond to your comment because you seem to believe that the use of numbers and the exploration of the world leads people to commit sins and that you are committing blasphemy by doing so, which is not the case. First Satan is not everywhere that God is. Satan is a creature created by God and is an angel, so he would have access to the 3 heavens and the earth, but he does not have access to the eighth (highest) place in the creation because only God the Father and the Word can go there he also cannot go outside of the creation where only God can go. Those who have chosen to become members or parts of God's body and have been completely sanctified and have God living and ruling in their lives do not need to fear Satan because God is much greater in power and in all other ways than Satan, since he is the creator and Satan is just one of his creatures. Those who are being sanctified, but have not yet completed the process that makes them completely ready for God to fully live in them by replacing all of the foolishness that is naturally built into man with the knowledge of God, can still be tempted in some cases, but God can also keep them from sinning, which is why when the disciples asked Jesus how they should pray he gave them a prayer the included asking God to "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil". Those who do not choose to become members of God's body are given over to Satan to rule over them, so they will be led into sinning by him. He works this through many lies and other means, since they are not protected by God. The biggest lie is the one that he used with Eve to get her to sin, which is that you can be as gods. People are convinced that they can rule over their own lives and be completely independent from all others, when in reality they are obeying Satan's desires. This is why even though they say that they are for everyone having free choice in all matters, they actively try to get rid of all evidence of the existence of God from the world, which if successful would actually take away the freedom of choice to choose to become members of God's body, as an example. Of course, God will not allow that to happen because he always keeps a remnant among the people. Satan knows that once God has completed the making of his body members, there will be no more need to have him to rule over those who do not choose God because God will then destroy this creation and all of the evil that is in it including him and will make a new better creation in which evil will not exist. He, therefore, tries to keep God from finishing his work by destroying as many people as he can. He will even try to kill those who serve him because he knows that as long as they are alive they can change their minds and chose to become God's body members. He must keep them from understanding what they are giving up until they die, in order to be sure that they will be lost to God because it is then too late for them to change their minds. There is, therefore, a way for people to avoid having Satan in their minds leading them to explore the world in such a way as to cause them to commit sins. It just requires them to choose to have God in their minds leading them to explore the world in such a way as to cause them to do good instead of evil. Exploring and gaining an understanding of God and his creation is not against God's will. He actually tells us to do so. That is why Jesus said "seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you, ask and ye shall receive." Seek means to actively look or see or observe that which is around you, which is the basis for gaining all understanding of the world and is a necessary part of the scientific method. To knock is to interact with the world and is also a part of the scientific method. After all, most of what is known about matter particles has resulted from knocking them together and observing the results. The asking has two parts. First is that when you begin to search for an understanding of the world you can find others who have already spent much time seeking, knocking, and asking who can give you the benefit of their work, thus avoiding the need for each person to redo everything. You must be careful, though, to be sure that the provided information is correct. The second part is that you can ask God and since he made all of the creation and knows everything about himself, he can show you all he desires for you to know about it and him at the proper time for you to use it according to his purpose. The difference is that God desires for you to know the truth about him and the creation that he made including those things that can tell you things about him, while Satan desires for you to believe things based on lies that will keep you from seeing and understanding the things that will tell you about God and his nature and the things that would show you that he made the creation. To me the choice is easy to make. You either choose the one who made you and loves you enough that he desires for you to become a part of him and to live and work together in a loving relationship with him in a life without end in a new perfect world without end or you choose the one who desires to destroy you so that he can delay God's work as long as he can to keep himself alive as long as he can. The best that you can hope for if you make that second choice is to have a life that will most likely be less than 100 years long in this world and then to have death and destruction.

Usually to say God in heaven does not refer to the earth's heaven where the sun, moon and other stars, etc. are located, but refers instead to the heaven that is the other part of the creation, which is divided into 3 heavens. The earth is contained in the lower 4 dimensions of the creation. The first heaven also has an additional fifth dimension and is controlled by the powers. The second heaven has an additional sixth dimension and is controlled by the principalities. The third heaven has an additional seventh dimension and is ruled by the angels. God's throne is located in the middle of the third heaven. When someone with understanding says God in heaven, he would usually be referring to the third heaven where God's throne is. We are not given much information as to the construction of the heavens, so we don't even know if it contains any matter as we know it. When God had created the earth he said that it was without form and void. This means that it contained space that was meant to hold or contain things with shapes or forms, but it was empty space at that time and did not contain any of those things within it. The things would, of course, be things made of matter, but matter had not yet been created in it. This tells us that the space and the matter are two different things. The space was created first and later the matter was created in it out of motions that were added to the earth later. Gravity has to do with the sub-energy field particles that the Spirit of God added to the earth when he moved upon the face of the waters and the fifth vector motion that changes energy photons into matter particles, etc., but I can't go into the details of that at this time.

I hope that this can help you to avoid the blasphemy and to gain the relationship with God that will deliver you from evil. As I said, you don't have to answer this comment as I know you are busy trying to get good reviews to win the contest.

Sincerely,

Paul

My comment to Claude Michael Cassano on his paper's page on Feb. 5, 2018

Dear Claude,

Does your math model tell us the basic substance of which matter particles, energy photons, and fields are composed or constructed? If so what is it? Does it tell us how this basic substance is structured in each of them to give them their individual observable properties? If so what are those structures?

It would seem to me that if time is a dimension and one could go back into the past or forward into the future, then, whenever any motion in the universe moved to a new position it would be necessary for that motion to somehow generate a complete new copy of the entire universe in order to always preserve the place to go back to before that motion position change occurred. Given the great size, large number of existent entities, and the great structural complexity of the universe that we can observe, it would seem to me that such an elaborate almost infinite structure would not be in accordance with such concepts as energy conservation and Occam's razor that nature always chooses the simplest most efficient way of doing things, etc. Of course, in order to be able to go into the future, all of those copies of the universe would need to have existed from the beginning of the creation to allow someone to go into any point in the future from any point in the past. It would seem to me that this would mean that all of the choices that you will make in the future must already have been made by you at the beginning of the universe in order for the copies of the universe that included the changes that were generated by those choices to be able to be copied into those future universe copies in which you made those choices so that you could go into the future to places beyond the places where you made those choices and see the proper results of your having made those decisions. In addition to all of this unnecessary complexity, if you could go into the past and change things, all of those changes and all of the additional changes that might directly or indirectly result from those changes as they moved forward in time from that point, would have to in some way be propagated through all of those copies. That type of thing does not look like a natural structure, but like some computer program that would contain all of the additional logic programming to perform such a task. It would seem to me that a universe that contained motions that continually moved from one position to the next in the absence of interactions with other motions would be much more in line with Occam's razor, etc. In such a system, when motions moved from their present positions to new positions these new positions would be their present. The positions that they were in before moving into these current positions would be part of their past, but would no longer exist because those motions would no longer be in those positions. Positions into which all of the motions would move after they moved out of their current positions would be their future positions, but that future condition of all the motions would not yet exist because the motions would not have moved into them yet. This would mean that only the present ever really exists, and there would only need to be one of each motion that is in existence, which fits well into observed reality. Can you use your math model to not only model existing most accepted theories, but to also determine if they are actually true to reality, by going behind the structure of those theories to determine if all of their complex structure is needed and if their resultant outputs are the best way to model reality?

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Claude,

For some unknown reason, every extra line space that was in the above comment to you was replaced by the letter n. Can your math theory explain what caused that to happen? When you see the letter n just sitting there by itself just understand that an extra line should be between the text before the n and the text after the n. Isn't man's modern technology wonderful? I don't know if it will happen to this message also or not. I guess we will see.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Peter,

Thank you for the positive comment on the essay and hypothesis and the comments on language and communication. I do have a tendency to transfer the information without always including all of man's language structures in the written form because they are not included in the form in which it is provided to me. I try to add the commas and paragraph extra lines, etc., but I tend to miss some especially if I get in a hurry or near the end of a long project, etc. From what I have seen in other papers, it seems to be a common problem of many. Sometimes I see things that appear somewhat odd in papers, but if it does not interfere with the transfer and understanding of the intended concepts of the paper, I try to just ignore them. As an example, in the first paragraph of your paper you say "We suggest 'yes' but we want most fundamental." The use of the word "we" would suggest that you worked with one or more others to generate your paper, but you are the only one mentioned as the author of the paper. Of course this does not have a direct bearing on the paper's content except as a slight distraction from the subject, which is not important.

As you mention frequency is not fundamental because it is a resultant output property measurement of cyclical motions, which are also not fundamental because they are the result of the interactions between two or more basic linear or cyclical motions. In the same way, wavelength is the resultant output of the joining interaction of a cyclical motion with a linear motion at an angle to the direction of the cyclical motion's back and forth motion. This can, of course, be more complex if the cyclical motion contains more than one linear motion component within it. Time is one of the most misunderstood concepts in science today because it is generally considered to be an existent physical dimension, but it is actually only an output property of the interaction between a motion and the spatial distance through which it travels. Things become much simpler when you understand that a given motion can contain more or less motion than another motion, such that if two motions travel from points on a line in the same direction that is ninety degrees from the direction of that line and both travel to another line that is parallel to the first line, one of the motions can reach the line and the other motion has not yet traveled that far because it contains a smaller amount of motion. I call this amount of motion that is contained within a given motion its motion amplitude because it represents the magnitude of the motion content within that motion. Any convenient motion amplitude can be selected as the standard motion amplitude. This frees one from the extra complexity of adding a rate function. This changes D=RT to D=MT where M is the motion amplitude of the motion. This shows that T=D/M. From this you can see that time is only an interaction relationship between a motion and the distance that it travels. You could, of course, select a standard motion amplitude that would be that rate that would cause it to travel one mile of distance that would compare to the distance / motion amplitude spectrum that would currently be called one hour. Twice that motion amplitude level would then be equivalent to 2 miles per hour, etc. An hour is actually only a measurement of a standard motion traveling through a standard distance. Whether it is considered to be the time that a point on the earth takes to travel 1/24 of the way around the circumference of the earth or the time it takes for an atom to travel through the distance of many complete cycles of vibration, etc. it is just the measurement of a motion's motion amplitude as it travels through a specific distance. Since T = D / M, There is a whole spectrum of motion amplitudes and their associated distances that equal the same time. Any distance greater than zero would have an associated motion amplitude that would cause it to take one hour to travel that distance. If you want to tie a standard distance to a standard motion amplitude to produce a specific time output, you can just select the desired standard distance and then select the motion amplitude level that will yield one standard unit of time. We are used to using specific standard motion spectrums to generate our standard times, but a standard time could be any D / M spectrum combination that together all equal one unit of time. The only reason that the concept of time is even needed is because motions can contain different amounts of motion. If all motions contained the same amount of or amplitude of motion, the need to consider time would not exist. If someone asked you how long it took you to get to someplace, you could just say it took 12 miles and they would know how long that was because anything that traveled 12 miles would take the same amount of time. In that case D =T and since they would be equal, it would not be necessary to consider time at all. The concept that time is some sort of existent dimensional entity in itself, especially one that you can travel back and forth in, is one of man's current scientific errors.

You are right that we both start out with motions, but I see them as the existent entities that occupy an otherwise empty spatial structure while you look at them as somehow existing as motions that are contained within some kind of undefined fluid. It is very hard for man to get away from the concept that motions must always be expressed as something else that is in motion rather than the understanding that all of those other things that you see in motion are actually composed of motions themselves. In interactions, the number of matter particles and/or energy photons is not always conserved, so they cannot be the most basic structures. Only the total motion content is always conserved. It is possible that the total number of motions is also conserved, but since man here cannot presently observe individual sub-energy field particles, that concept cannot be observationally tested at this time. I say that because when an energy photon is absorbed by an electron in an atom, it may only transfer its fourth dimensional wave motion to the electron and then leave the interaction as a linear motion sub-energy particle, etc. The point is that the total amount of motion in the universe always remains the same, but those things that are constructed out of that motion like energy photons and matter particles can be constructed and destructed by interactions. A particle can exist as a linear motion that does not contain any rotational or spin motion associated with it. Such particles are evident in field structures that operate in a linear action with no angular motion. In your hypothesis what is that fluid composed of and how do its individual parts act and interact to produce the interactions with motions that you propose that somehow produces vortices that are in the shape of spheres? This fluid level and the motion that was introduced into them would, of course, be a more fundamental level of structure than the matter particles that would be produced by them and would, therefore, need to also be understood to obtain a complete fundamental understanding of the universe. Since the Higgs Boson contains a very large amount of motion, it should be able to produce many other particles and/or energy photons as decay products. That should not be a surprise to anyone.

It looks like you identify curl as rotation. If that is the case, you are right that the curvature of the rotation decreases as you travel away from the pole on the surface of the sphere toward the equator, but it does not reduce to zero at the equator because if you look at a rotating sphere from above the north or south pole, you can see all the way to the equator and observe that it is still rotating. If it was not rotating anything at the equator would fly off away from the sphere in whatever linear direction that its linear motion was going when it reached the equator. You are right that the linear motion is greatest at the equator and does reduce to zero at the zero dimensional point of the pole, since that point cannot rotate. In most cases vortices in a fluid do not take the shape of a sphere. You would have to explain how that shape is formed.

Although the rotation curvature does decrease to a minimum at the equator and then increases again as you travel toward the other pole, it does not change direction of rotation. You can see this by fastening a flag on a long pole to the far pole that you are not above so that the flag pole is at ninety degrees to the axis of rotation and the flag pole is long enough that you can see the flag sticking out beyond the equator of the sphere. You will see that the flag is rotating in the same direction as the half of the sphere that you can see is rotating. The appearance of rotation in the opposite direction only occurs when you view the sphere from above the opposite pole. This is not due to a change in the direction of rotation of the sphere. It is due to a change of direction of the observer in relation to the sphere.

If you view the rotation of the sphere from above the equator with the north pole of rotation up and the south pole down, you can move all around the sphere staying above the equator and it will always continue to rotate in the same direction either toward the left or the right according to its original motion direction. Its direction of rotation will only appear to change to the opposite direction if you rotate yourself so that the south pole is up and the north pole is down. Again, it is not the direction of the rotation of the sphere that has changed, but the direction of the observer that has changed. In both of the above changes due to observer orientation, the observer could be another spinning sphere and an interaction between the two spheres could generate different outcomes depending on the spheres' relative orientations.

When you say "6. Fermion pairs DO 'pop up' from a sub-quantum condensate (motion induces pressure changes)." Is the sub-quantum condensate the same thing as the fluid that you mention earlier or is it something else? If it is something else, it would also need to be defined as to its basic substance and how that substance is structured. Its fundamentality in comparison to the fluid, etc. would also need to be established and if one generated the other in some way that generation mechanism would need to be determined and explained. If motion induces pressure changes and the pressure changes cause fermion pairs to be created, how come we don't see new fermions popping up everywhere, since motions are moving around all over the place? In (7.) When you mention "sub-ether" is that something new or is that just another name for the fluid, the sub-quantum condensate, or something else that you have already mentioned? If it is new how does it fit in with the other structures? In (9.) when you say "Majorana fermion; north hemisphere = electron, S = positron, (equator is up, or down at 180 degrees)", it looks like you are saying that a positron is just an electron that is rotated 180 degrees. If that is actually what you are saying it would seem that in a gas where particles can move freely and interact with each other, an interaction could easily cause a matter particle to be rotated on its axis, which would cause it to become an antiparticle compared to those that had not been rotated. When the rotated particle interacted with a non-rotated particle they would both be destroyed and turned into EM radiation. Over time as more and more particles became rotated by interactions, the gas would become completely changed into EM radiation. Since most of the matter in the universe is composed of gas, such large scale conversion in stars would create so much EM radiation that the stars would all explode, etc.

This comment is getting large, so I will end it now.

Sincerely,

Paul

My comment to Claude Michael Cassano on his paper's page in response to his comment to me on that page on Feb. 6, 2018

Dear Claude,

First I will explain the situation about the printing of the letter n instead of a line feed because that should be the easiest part. I have used the same copy of Microsoft word to type out my comments for several years and that was the first time that it had that problem, so it could not be due to the word processor's end of line delimiters, since they have remained the same for a long time with no problems. After I finish typing the comment, I do a spell check and read over it to look for errors that the word processor would not find like the word 'there' being used when the word 'their' was intended, etc. I then save the document. That all worked ok. Next, I go to FQXI and open the page that the comment is to go on and log in. After that I select the comment that I am responding to and select the option to comment to its thread. I then go back to my word processor, highlight all of the comment and select copy. Next I go back to the FQXI page and paste the comment into the comment window on that page. I then read over the comment to be sure that it is still ok and in this case it was still ok with the line spaces in their proper places. After convincing the FQXI page that I am a humon, I select the option to post the document. Then I go back to the page and check it again to be sure that it went in ok and in this case that is where I saw the 'n's' instead of the 'linefeeds'. This tells me that the problem was not at my end, but had to be either in the transmission or reception area. Since I noticed that the comment that I made on your page seems to have been corrected now, I assume that FQXI found and corrected the error, so it was probably a glitch in their software unless you corrected it yourself. In addition to that, when I was looking at other comments today I saw another comment that mentioned having the same problem, so the evidence indicates that the error was FQXI's software problem. I have left out some details, but this is an example of conceptual structuring, which involves looking at the known structure of the entities involved, at their action and interaction outputs, and then analyzing them to determine the compositions of the structures involved and how their structure acts by itself and interacts with other entities to produce the observed output results. Once all of this is understood any error generated in the data can be traced back to its cause.

Currently, I find conceptual structuring ability sadly lacking in man's scientific community. Where I do see it, I usually find that it is focused on some minor structure deep down in a logical or math tunnel that has already departed so far from reality that those involved usually think that they are making great gains when they are really just propagating the errors deeper and deeper. At the same time, the observational data and even the math models are giving indications that if followed up could lead to the next deeper level of understanding of the true structure of the universe and that information is generally being ignored. Your paper demonstrated that you have analytic skills and that they were not only reproductive of previously developed math structures, but showed that you could possibly possess the ability to develop new math structures, so when I asked about the substance and structure of matter particles, energy photons, and fields, I was testing to see if you also have developed conceptual structuring abilities. I have not yet had the time to read the papers that you provided links to in your response, but their titles indicate that you may not have developed those abilities. This is not unexpected because conceptual structuring training does not appear to be provided in man's current educational systems. What I am looking for are those who either have or at least possess the ability to understand both conceptual and analytic structuring systems and can ideally use the results from each system to develop a deeper overall understanding of the complete structure of the universe.

Basic physical conceptual structuring contains four primary levels of structuring, all of which must be applied to create a physical device or to completely successfully analyze and understand an already created device. Generally they are applied in the same order, but you start at opposite ends of that order depending on whether you are creating a device or just analyzing an already existing device. When creating a new device, however, it is sometimes necessary to look at aspects that are desired to be exhibited by later levels to be sure that the present structural level will allow or generate those desired output properties in the later structural level, etc. These levels are:

1. Substance: All physical objects are composed of one or more substances. Each individual substance in the device is usually described according to the hierarchical level in which the device is produced and is expected to function. This means that a device that is made and is expected to be used at the large scale level such as a pen to use to write on paper will be expressed as being composed of substances such as a metal or plastic outer shell containing an inner tube made of plastic that contains a fluid or semifluid that contains pigment, which will leave the marks on the paper. At one end of the tube would be a metal piece with a small metal ball mounted in it, such that it can easily rotate, but not fall out. This metal piece will have a hole in it through which the fluid can flow from the tube to the metal ball, so it can then be spread on the paper. All of these substances can be found in many different forms at the large scale, so many different types of pens can be created. If you were to decide to make a new better type of ink for a pen you might want to work at the next lower level of structure in which case the substances that you would use to make it might be described in the form of the molecules that you use to make it. If you were making a specific molecule, you could describe its substances in terms of the atoms of which it is composed and if you were trying to make a specific atom, you would describe its substances as the subatomic particles of which it is composed and the fields that join them together to form the atom. The question that I asked you is; what substance(s) would be used to make a matter particle?

2. Internal structuring: In the above section on substance you can see that the substances are joined together structurally in one way or another to form the completed device. At the atomic level, the number of each type of matter particle that you used and the field structure that is used to join them together determines the type of atom produced. My question to you was, at the matter particle level, how is its substance structured or put together to make a specific matter particle.

3. Internal actions and reactions: Since man in this world still does not fully understand the internal actions and reactions within matter particles, atoms, and molecules, it would be best to get a beginning understanding of them by looking at large scale devices. If you look at a mechanical watch that is powered by a battery that can allow it to run for several years, you can see that it contains several internal motions in its parts that interact with those parts in such a way as to provide that the hour, minute, and second hands all continue through their cyclical motion cycles in coordination with each other without the application of any external interactions. The basic motion supplied by the battery is supplied by internal motion transfer interactions between the parts to generate all of the cyclical motions that are outputted in the form of the motions of the hands.

4. External actions and interactions: External actions and interactions are those that can be detected by another device through external actions and interactions that transfer information from one device to the other device. In the example of the watch above, the movement of the hands on the watch can be detected by us through interactions between the watch face and its hands and light photons that bounce off of those surfaces and then enter and interact with structures in our eyes that ultimately through a large number of internal actions and interactions gives us an understanding of those motions of the hands on the watch. Through such external actions and interactions you could also learn other things about the watch, such as the colors, sizes, and shapes of its external parts, etc.

When you are trying to get a complete understanding of an already existent complex hierarchical device such as the universe, you must start by analyzing its external actions and interactions because that is all that you have access to for the most part. At this stage analytical structuring methods which generally are math based can be very important in developing understandings of cyclical motion flow structures and their interrelationships or the rules of operation of the devices that are detectable within the hierarchical level that you live in and then to work your way down to the basic structures of that level. When you begin to get to the level that you break some substance down to the point that it becomes two or more other substances, you can begin to understand that those substances were joined together or structured in some way that created a new composite structure or substance with its own internal actions and interactions and its own external actions and interactions due to the way that its parts are put together. At this stage, when you begin to go out of the hierarchical level that you live in and try to understand how things work at lower levels that you cannot directly observe, conceptual structuring begins to become important to focus observational and analytical structuring in the right direction to achieve the maximum development rate and to avoid following mathematical paths that lead to dead ends. At the same time the new observational and analytical information thus derived can correct conceptual errors. The observational, analytical, and conceptual disciplines can each act as a cross check on the accuracy of the others and are thus of equal importance in the acquisition and understanding of the information that is provided to us by the universe.

Using conceptual structuring we find that as we progress downward through the hierarchical structural levels of the universe, some things such as linear and angular motions, energy photons, and field structures are present and act about the same way at all levels. The entities that make up the substances of each level, however, are different in some ways and tend to become fewer the farther down we go. At the large scale level there is an almost infinite number of different substances that can be made. At the molecular level there are still more possible different molecules that could be made than there are matter particles in the universe from which they could be made. At the atomic level, however, there is a great decrease in the number of different atoms that can be made, especially if you only consider the ones that are stable, and at the matter particle level only a very few stable matter particles can be made. This leads us to the likely possibility that matter particles may be made of only one most basic substance. This concept is strengthened by the fact that matter particles, energy photons, and simple linear and angular motions can be converted into each other. This means that they must all be composed of the same basic substance. Since they each behave differently in one or more ways from the others, they must contain different ways that the substance is structured within them. The fact that when matter particles interact with each other, they can produce several different output interaction results, each of which has its own probability of occurrence tells us that they must contain internal motion structures that can be positioned differently in relation to one another in each matter particle at the point of interaction, such that the different interaction outcomes are generated. The different probabilities of occurrence of each outcome suggest that there are physical spatial areas that motions could be in at the point of interaction that yield each outcome that vary in size for each of them, etc.

Just as in the past it has been a great help to the advancement of science to have conceptual models of how molecules are constructed and later models of how atoms are constructed, we are now at the point that conceptual models of how matter particles are constructed are greatly needed to guide scientific development into what may very well be the lowest level of structure of the universe. Then the analytical and observational structuring disciplines can be used to model the detailed motion flows and their resultant interaction results for a full in depth understanding of the universe as it is currently known by man in this world. At this point what is needed is someone who can develop the math that can model the complex motion structures of matter particles, etc. and their interaction flows. New math structural concepts such as path flow structuring may need to be developed to make it easier to accomplish this.

Sincerely,

Paul