Peter

You haven't identified the parameter I point too. Otherwise you wouldn't and couldn't say "The weighing scales will read (almost) identically no matter what the angle of the post".

You have introduced elements and terms which are not relevant to the observation I describe. You are talking about something other than what I am, so you cant comment on what analysis is or isn't flawed, and what serves as a proper scientific experiment.

If you've ever dropped a heavy son of a bitch motor cycle, then you will have experienced its extreme of weight as you first hoist it from the ground. But the lifting effort reduces as the bike transitions to an upright position, as the bikes weight is increasingly centred over the tyres.

The parameter I measure is the bikers experience of weight as the bike is lifted toward a balanced position in the Earths gravitational field. The shifting proportion of weight is non-linear. It is disproportionately heavy while the bike as at 22 degrees from the ground, and disproportionally lighter at 68 degrees from the ground.

I have measured this very simple parameter utilizing a pole and scales. The transition of weight is the same curve as expressed by quantum probability.

At this moment I will not extrapolate an interpretation of this classical system and why it might relate to quantum probability distributions. Except to say that both can be related via interaction of forces, and angles of influence.

The observation itself is not something you can disagree with. It is a non-subtle parameter which is easily measured. If you disagree with it then you are arguing with nature, not myself ? Good luck with that.

I hope that helps understanding?

Steven

Peter

I appreciate your considerations towards hidden variables. I have expressed as much. I merely seek to share an additional consideration which might complement yours. The interaction between particles and detectors might be presumed to have consideration of geometries(particle shape) but it is also going to be a consideration of forces (two way forceful interaction) changing states of momentum and position.

The larger part of your proposal might be termed geometric. Decoding Bells inequalities based on geometries and various positions of those geometries. You also include considerations of momentum, which are related to forces and forceful interactions.

The consideration I put to you distills the simplest geometry possible, a pole. But shows (if you would look at it) that force interactions can still relate a basis for decoding photon behavior and Bells inequality.

That isnt to say we can do away with your considerations and proposed dynamics, because the simple pole geometry can only decode the photons behavior. Massive particles have additional complex behaviors which require your general method for decoding. But, force interactions are a dynamic which needs to flow through your considerations, based on the observation I have put forward to you. In my opinion.

I believe it is a very conservative assumption, physics is about geometries "and" very particular force interactions. Force considerations entail issuing of force, and resistance to forces issued. That is the basis for why the pole behaves as it does in a gravitational field and presumably why it might replicate a photons probability curve.

If you should weigh a pole at various angles and see that it does behave that way. Then you might ask why it displays the same curve as quantum probability? Why do poles and photons at the same angle, share a relate-able value?

Steve

Steve,

Yes, I better understand you (until the end!) make no assumption of total system weight change, but it's still clear that my third to last paragraph above (please read it again carefully) analyses it correctly in classical mechanics terms. i.e.

Take your bike. The total Hamiltonian of you plus bike is a constant, equivalent to weight (you bike). As the bike is raised the SHARE of that changes until the bike is upright and each resolves to it's own weight.

As I wrote, the point you're making is that the rate of change is non-linear, and as my essay identifies, the force changes by the Cosine of the angle between 0 and 90o, which gives a Bayesian distribution or Gaussian Bell curve. Now read Prof Phillips excellent essay where he brilliantly explains why that's ubiquitous for ALL distributions in the universe, including where described as 'probability curve'.

But then you go off track with; "If you should weigh a pole at various angles and see that it does behave that way.." I repeat; It does NOT behave that way. Try it! Go back to your bike; with wheels on scales you find it weights LESS when inclined! and if you stand on scales (the ONLY way to measure weight) you'll find you're taking that exact difference.

Now we CAN also consider the orthogonal 'rotation' case at the base of the pole, which has the same cosine distribution with angle but again is NOT 'WEIGHT' in ANY sense. It's purely rotational, which you can call torque or Maxwell's 'curl'.

Prof Phillips identifies, as I and you do, that this distribution is oft ignored and poorly understood, but reading this and his essay explains why it's the case. So yes, you do have a point, but as Phillips identifies. "the Gaussian distribution (i.e. the bell curve) is perhaps the most celebrated probabilistic example of a kind of fundamental inevitability. ..pick a bunch of random numbers and take their average, we get a new random number. If we now repeat this lots of times, the collection of random averages we generate will have a Gaussian distribution. ..might seem abstract and far removed but it's not. But indeed you're right insofar as what's not seen in simplistic OAM analysis is that second orthogonal and inverse distribution.

I hope that clarifies what, and what the importance of it, is.

very best

Peter

Hi Peter:

Thanks for your time and efforts in providing detailed analysis and comments on my paper. I appreciate it deeply.

I am not an expert in optics, plasma, plasmonics etc . Hence, I would try my best to respond to your questions in terms of relativistic formulations of the concerned phenomena:

1. Peter: "You seem to start with an assumption that photons are particles, so not waves and not requantized."

Avtar: While QM formulations are probabilistic wave functions, my paper depicts quantum events as relativistic, deterministic, and mechanistic phenomena in terms of mass/energy/space/time. Instead of quantization or re-quantization, my model allows spontaneous mass-energy conversion back and forth as needed to satisfy conservation laws and boundary conditions in a classical relativistic space-time. Hence, the optics formulations focusing on a detailed beam structure of individual particles - fermions, excitons etc are quite different and not easy to reconcile.

2. Peter: "2. You seem not to have considered the re-emitted photon speed as 'acceleration' rather than 'powered' by the emitter, i,e. the constant fermion spin energy after coupling (absoption/re-emission). Have you considered and discarded that apparently very consistent model? if so, why?

Avtar: I am proposing a new model or missing physics of spontaneous mass-energy conversion or equivalence totally focused on relativistic conservation of mass-energy as governed by relativity theory. You can draw your own parallels with fermion spin energy model that I do not have much familiarity with.

3. Peter: "You describe galaxies at z=8 as 'mature'. How do you arrive at this description when we have no model or sequence of secular evolution. I assume a 'red' stellar population? In any case this implies a life cycle' of galxies. i.e. what do you assume 'happened' to the old ones from 11bn yrs ago? (I don't challenge anything but I do have a coherent cyclic sequence answering that).

Avtar: The key point of my paper is that time or evolution sequence is not a governing parameter in my model. I have no problem if you would like to call either "mature" or "Red" etc. My model is a quasi-static universe model since the universe has no unique absolute time (time is relative in relativity, there is no one unique clock in the universe, no beginning, no ending, no evolution). Further my model predicts large mass galaxies far beyond 11 billion years that is falsifiable via future observations.

4. Peter: "You may have noted I've been working on QM the last 3yrs essays. I agree all you say (of SR as well as GR). You suggest the inconsistencies are 'resolved' but I've looked very hard and can find no actual full resolution defined, including to the EPR paradox. For the QM must be derived classically with CSHS >2, (or GM be proved completely weird!). On reading mine you'll see that's precisely what it does. Please study and identify any similarities."

Avtar: I read your paper and tried my best to digest the intricate details involving the particle physics, optics, and QM mathematical concepts that I admit not to have deep familiarity with. So, instead of treading in unknown waters, let me try to answer your questions in relativistic terms of my model:

• Peter's model explains the gaps between SR and QM via - " .... simple concept is relative motion, linear and rotational, so orbital & helical. All bound & ever more complex molecular matter and physics then evolves. As for 'foundational interpretations' of Quantum Physics; .......... Simply adding re-emissions at local 'c'. The model explains QM experiments, no comparisons or analysis presented against far-field cosmological expansion data showing dark energy. Need explanation for why the QM vacuum energy predictions are 120 orders of magnitude higher than observed, what is quantum gravity, how the collapse of the wave functions occurs, role of the consciousness of the observer, did the big bang happen, is there a unique time/clock in the universe, where, how, and when it started and what was before it?

• Avtar's model bridges the gaps between SR and QM via - " ......simply adding spontaneous mass-energy conversion inducing simple expansive (anti-gravity) relative motion complementing molecular, complex matter physics (described in detail in my book -"The Hidden Factor" but omitted from the FQXi paper due to space limitations). Predicts mathematically dark energy, supernova expansion, collapse of the wave function (via spontaneous conversion of wave energy to classical mass as V is interrupted via measurement), red galaxies in far-field universe, non-locality via space dilation etc. Need to develop details at the particle level (spin, refraction, rotation, plasma etc) - the focus has been global or universal mass-energy conservation rather than local particle behavior details.

• The EPR paradox becomes irrelevant in Avtar's model because of the relative motion between the two subjects (Alice and Bob) effects each of them equally and hence, no paradox of varying ages between the two.

• Heisenberg's uncertainty is shown by Avtar's model to be an artifact of the measurement deficiency/error in resulting from classical (fixed space-time) measurements of the highly relativistic (V close to C, greatly dilated space-time) quantum phenomena. The uncertainty would dissolve if the measurements are made in the same relativistic space-time as the quantum event. (This is described in great mathematical detail in my book).

• Both models prove that "the apparently most ridiculously simple of concepts can resolve & unite incomplete and incompatible theories."

Wishing you the best for the contest and hoping to continue the wisdom-full dialogue,

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

avsingh@alum.mit.edu

  • [deleted]

Peter,

2020 sounds good. Once two people have a common understanding of a truth it may catch fire.

Sherman

Satyav,

You'll see the explanation for blue galaxies at high z in the 'cyclic..' paper, there's effectively no blue shift, just red, and derivable without accelerating expansion, as here;Video http://youtu.be/KPsCp_S4cUs

There are many Sauron kinematic survey papers on arXiv i.e; https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703531.all quite specialist, but all based on the same premiss of Doppler shifts from opposing edge rotation speeds.

I hope all that helps. Do pass me a link to your CMB anistropy derivation.

Very best

Peter

My Dear Peter!

Thank you very much for your great opinion to my work.

And my opinion with my high support to your huge efforts to go to the truth I have exposed already in your page (1 of February) that maybe you just did not seen yet, (because you are overloaded!) It is not so important thing my dear, but important is that both of we are same thinkers (almost) and I always will happy to see your new works!

With my best wishes,

George

    Peter,

    So close. Still too complicated. More fundamental still. The barmaid will still have some of the same roadblocks. Namely preconceived ideas. And "..if it was that simple...surely someone would have thought of that." I have tried the barmaid theory more than once, no luck. What I mean is, they didn't grasp the explanation. But you may have even less luck with the expert with their own idea and politically correct limitations etc.

    Sherman

      Sherman, (+posted on yours) -see also my fine structure 1/137 analysis there.

      I agree. Physics is closed minded. So I try Feynmans method, start by explaining it to a child...

      A spinning sphere works well if I'm there to explain it; child or in the bar. But let me try my fishbowl: Go down to the other end of the bar, shine a pulsed (1 sec) laser back at my fish bowl. The light slows to c/n glass then back to c/n air (or water or vacuum with some particles to light up) then c/n glass & back again. OK? I then slide the bowl at v down the bar & 'beam' to you (it won't fall off, I've practiced lots!)

      DFM analysis; As SR's postulates, the light does c/n in the rest frame of the fish bowl k' until it exits into the background bar rest frame k, so is further delayed, by v while in the bowls inertial system. A webcam in the moving fish bowl records the pulses being encountered more frequently then 1 sec. due to the Doppler shift. The barmaids webcam half way down the bar records apparent c-v (and c+v when you slide it back) while in the bowl! However those are NOT local propagation speeds. Evidence from another frame only gives 'apparent' speed.

      DOCTRINAL interpretation analysis; No 'preferred' background frame can exist so the camera lied because the fishbowl really shrunk or expanded without cracking, and 'time itself' dilated in the bowl.

      Now 5 of 6 children and barmaids understand and chose the correct logical analysis, in line with all optical science. Why can't 90% of academic physicists overcome cognitive dissonance to also do so? I last year suggested (apart from fear etc) that it's just our state of intellectual evolution. Is that fair?

      Classic QM was a test of the DFM, which it seems to have a passed. A tranche of more fundamental truths emerge, including cyclic cosmology, changing the 'Law of the Excluded Middle', Determinism etc, many in previous essays.

      Links available. I'm sure you've found others as good or better, do pass me yours. We have a bit of a consortium to make all coherent. Prof Chandra Roych.. also wants to go that way. Are you interested?

      If all else fails could we mass produce coffins and use Max Plancks solution?! lol

      Very best.

      Peter

      Thank you. I do judge your work very well. You are destined to do very well in this years contest and deservedly so.

      As for my leaning pole concept, you appear to have added the bikers weight to the bikes weight (you bike). If you had identified the parameter I point too, then you wouldnt have seen this as a necessary component. I cant judge your impression very well, partly because you havent spoken plainly enough about it. But it doesnt matter to let the subject go.

      All the best for the remainder of the contest and enjoy.

      Steve

      George (also on yours. ps I hadn't applied your score so will now)

      Yes, I note you had posted and thanks for your support. I'd forgot I took yours with others away with me to read on a trip and left them & notes there. I hope to get them back soon.

      Very best

      Peter

      Dear Peter,

      Here we are again all together.

      Thank you for the good evaluation of my work.

      I like your description to. I enjoyed reading your contribution.

      Аgree with Declan Andrew Traill «often correct explanations in Physics turn out to be ridiculously simple».

      I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

      Vladimir Fedorov

      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

        Dear Peter,

        I have reread attentively your participation and liked your approach of "foundational".

        Some questions and remarks (if they are stupid to think of me as the barmaid...) between brackets is the page number.

        .

        (2)"a nominal 'bottom' in the Planck length. Any smaller scale condensate, continuum, Quantum foam (10в€'35), Coulomb/Casimir force field, 'zero points' or 'dark' energy, 'universe-filling medium' of Wilczek or 'New Ether' of Dirac is beyond observability"

        "Higgs process or fermion pair production 'popping up' from nowhere' implies a smaller perhaps more fundamental 'sub-quantum' scale of rotations as a 'sub-ether"

        (3)"(If the equator your side goes right or down the opposite side is going left or up)" I quite understand that by choosing the word "YOUR" side we are still talking about "the relative "motion" of this spin" and the agent itself is the reference? So the "rotations" are no rotations if there is no external agent to be aware of them?

        (4)no 6 "Fermion pairs DO 'pop up' from a sub-quantum condensate (motion induces pressure changes)" It is a very interesting "axiom" you propose as it can be explained as the Higgs Boson 'decay' producing fermions (on page 2). Does this also count for the popping up of particles and anti-particles at the event horizon of Black Holes (Hawking radiation)? My own interpretation is that this "popping up" is caused by the fluctuations on the border of emerging reality and "after Planck limits".

        (5)Your explanation of "superposed states" as an inherent property of internal "the exact set of 4 inversely proportional attributes changing by the Cosine of q to 0 at 90o and inverting at 180В°"is I think in its simplicity quite a genius thought and the approach you are making to explain "entanglement" is of the same quality. I think that the only basic need for this explanation is "These 4 inherent properties are simultaneously available at any moment" or am I wrong here?

        (7)"Other assumptions led to strange results in 'delayed choice/quantum eraser' experiments. Emissions use all paths." Maybe we both are trying to find the solution to this problem. You indicate that "every path is taken", I argue that Each reality loop is present (also the one where the future is causing events in the past) and every Loop where the agent is not experiencing this event is "disappearing" (becoming a probability again).

        "The more matter 'binds' the larger & greater this sub-matter energy density differential." I also have thought a long time for an explanation of gravity and until now I am a proponent of "Verlinde's" emerging gravity. But if we accept causal emergence this is congruent with your thoughts I think. (maybe the 4 inherent properties of particles that you mention have something to do with it when matter binds the rotational properties of the particles are creating a field called "gravity")

        I am but a "bartender" here Peter but you succeeded to explain the simplicity of your approach, and it made me think...I also think that without any consciousness matter would be in an ultimate state of equality of energy (highest entropy), so NOTHING would happen, we were not discussing anything. It was good that you advised me to reread intensely your participation. Thank you.

        Best regards

        And good luck in explaining your ideas.

        Wilhelmus

        link to my essay

          MR. Jackson,

          About your essay, i read and rated it. Further words are useless

          "...think outside infinite sequences of boxes..." would you mind if we change some perspectives about "loop thinking"?

          Silviu

            Vladimir,

            Thank you. Overcoming cognitive dissonance in academia seems to be the key to advancing understanding. Our greatest achievements will remain modest until then.

            I'm interested in your reply discerning cyclic lunar effects on our seas from the more distant 'waves' LIGO found.

            Rarity of agreement shows mankinds strength of diversity, yet that we find is reward in itself.

            Very Best

            Peter

            Silviu

            Thank you kindly.

            Feedback loops were last years essay, but yes, crucial to learning, consciousness and tying all those boxes together!

            Very best.

            Peter

            Steve,

            Thanks, Great to hear from you.

            I hope you and your spheres are well. I used them a lot!

            On the spot! ('spot on')

            Very best wishes

            Peter

            Peter Jackson,

            Thanks for reading my Essay on Electron Spin and giving your views. I have read your Essay and regarding QM, Einstein was right when he did not agree with the EPR experiment conclusions and had said, "spooky action at a distance" cannot occur and that, "God does not play dice". Please read Linear Polarization http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

            Kamal

              Dear Peter,

              1. I guess then that you really aren't the Pope or the king of the world as I thought you were. That is such a disappointment. I was thinking that you might have the power to open up diplomatic relations with my world. That was a Si-Fi moment. At least as far as you know. It looks like you are very concerned about making your work compatible with relativity and quantum mechanics. When I looked into them I found that both contained some major errors that have propagated many nonsense beliefs. Probably the greatest error in relativity is the concept that time is a physical dimension that you can travel back and forth in. In quantum mechanics, when it was discovered through observations that matter particles expressed the property of angular motion, instead of gaining the understanding that they were not point particles, but were actually extended particles that contain internal motions that can present themselves as angular to the direction of travel of the particle in interactions, they just invented the idea that they possessed some not well defined property of spin, which most have now come to believe that they really meant spin in the normal sense. Since they still want to believe matter particles to be point objects, this has led many to believe that a point object can spin when that is not the case in reality because a point object contains a point about which to spin, but it does not contain any extension to spin about that point. In any real world spin, the angular motion decreases to zero at the center point of the spin. Because of all of this, I decided to look at the observational information and see where that would lead me.

              2. I found that not only the observational information, but also current theories indicated that matter particles, energy photons, angular motions and even simple linear motions could all be changed into each other. This meant that each one of these entities had to contain all of the basic substance of which the others are composed in order to be able to be transformed into them. When I looked at the observed properties of each of them I found that the simplest structure is the simple linear motion. I decided to see if all of the others could be constructed out of one or more simple linear motions, such that they would exhibit all of their individual observed properties and I found that it is possible to do so. When I analyzed the matter particle that would be produced in that way, I found that it would not be a point particle and it would exhibit angular motions in interactions with other matter particles. The internal motions of the matter particles also explained why interactions between matter particles could generate several possible different outcome results and why they would each have a particular probability of occurrence. This cleared up a lot of the quantum mechanics nonsense, such as the idea that things don't happen until they are observed and the need for space vacuum pressure to explain the different outcomes, etc. I also found that simple linear motion particles could make up the structures of fields and explain why it sometimes appears that matter particles and energy photons just seem to appear from nowhere, etc. The fields composed of them also could explain the mechanisms of how the electrons and the matter particles in the nucleus of the atom are joined together and contained within the atom and how atoms are joined together into molecules, etc.

              The basic problem with spins or rotations is that they are two dimensional structures. They can be extended into three dimensions, but if you look at any point on a rotating sphere, you can see that it just revolves around the center point in a two dimensional plain. This means that it will not produce the same mass effect in all three dimensions. As an example, If you have two rotating spheres that both rotate in the same direction at the same angular speed and you place them, so that they are aligned side by side with their north rotational poles up and you then give one of them a small amount of motion toward the other one, when they come into contact, their angular motions in the opposite directions will cause them to repel each other. On the other hand, if you move one of them above the other one, such that its south pole is above the north pole of the other one and you then apply a small amount of motion to cause them to come together again, you will see that their angular motions will not cause them to repel each other because they are both moving in the same direction at the same speed in relation to each other, so that there is no relative angular motion difference between them. It requires a three dimensional motion pattern to generate a three dimensionally stable equal static mass effect in all three dimensions, which is what matter particles generally do, observationally.

              3. The particle pair productions, etc. that you mentioned, create electrons, etc. as the result of energy photons receiving enough motion during an interaction, so that they contain an adequate motion content to be able to produce the matter particle or particle pair that is created and then come into contact with an adequate angular motion such as the sub-energy field of an atom near its nucleus to allow that extra motion to be transferred from its fourth dimensional wave motion to the fifth dimension, which causes it to travel in a curved path that encloses back upon itself to generate its three dimensional cyclical enclosed path that changes it from an energy photon into a matter particle. Of course, it is also possible for a sub-energy particle to receive enough motion in an interaction to cause it to travel faster than the speed of light, such that the extra motion that would have caused it to travel faster than the speed of light is transferred to the fourth dimension to generate its frequency, wavelength, and dynamic mass effects, which changes it into an energy photon and if it receives enough motion it can also become a matter particle as described above. The matter particles don't just pop up from nothing it is just a matter of motion transfers that change one type of already existing particle or motion into another one.

              This is often accomplished by the transfer of kinetic motion from one entity to another one. Since man cannot yet detect single sub-energy particles, it can appear to him to be coming from nowhere, though. High densities of sub-energy particles that are directionally aligned can be detected as magnetic fields, etc., but man has generally not yet progressed to the point of understanding that yet. You are right that motion induces pressure changes. When a matter particle travels through a dense sub-energy field with enough kinetic energy it can generate enough pressure on the field to cause the probability of an interaction between it and a sub-energy particle in the field to be high enough, so that an interaction occurs. Since the matter particle contains the greater amount of motion, some of its kinetic motion is transferred to the sub-energy particle which changes it into either an energy photon or a matter particle depending on the amount of motion transferred and whether an adequate angular motion content is encountered, etc. In man's current particle accelerators, electrons are created by this type of interaction between the strong magnetic field used to compress and guide the matter particle beam and the matter particles in that beam, which is generally undesirable.

              4. In a field it would be possible for all of the particles to be aligned, such that their north poles were all in one direction, let's say up, and south poles at 180 degrees from that in the opposite direction, down, to make a two dimensional plane, but when you placed the next vertical level above it, the south poles of the particles in the new upper level would be above the north poles in the level below it, which, as described above, would not cause them to repel one another. Such a field would only work even in one layer with solids and to a lesser degree with liquids. In a gas the kinetic motion of the entities is great enough to overcome or be greater than the strength of the field that binds them, which is why they can move around freely in the gas. As you increase the kinetic motion level in the gas, you first exceed the level of the field structure that binds the molecules to each other, which causes the molecules to be able to move freely. Next you increase it to the point that it exceeds the strength of the field that joins the atoms into molecules and the molecules are broken apart leaving a free flowing gas of atoms. If you continue to increase the kinetic motion level of the gas you reach the point that you exceed the binding strength of the electrons to the atoms, which results in their separation from the atoms. Man usually calls this a plasma state and it creates the maximum free flowing motion structure that is usually found in nature. It would be possible to increase the kinetic motion level to the point that the nucleus of the atoms would also break up, but this does not usually occur in nature because in those places where the kinetic motion level might reach that level, such as in a star, there is also the great pressure due to the pull of gravity in the star that counteracts such dispersion and actually instead causes matter particles to be joined together into atoms. Of course, man's particle accelerators can create enough kinetic motion in matter particles to break up the nucleus of atoms and even the quark bindings in composite matter particles, etc.

              In our universe, the bottom of the scale is the simple linear motion sub-energy particle. Next above that is the energy photon, which is composed of a sub-energy particle and an additional motion that generates its wave properties. Next above that is the matter particle that contains an energy photon and an additional motion that generates its three dimensional enclosed path and its static mass effects. One complication that man is not yet generally aware of is that the matter particles that we know to exist can only interact with other matter particles and energy photons within a specific frequency range. This is because an interaction requires an adequate interaction cross section. This means that matter particles and energy photons with high enough frequencies have such small cross sections compared to the matter particles and energy photons that we experience that they cannot interact with those in our level of structure. The same thing applies to those that are of such low frequency that our matter particles and energy photons have such a small interaction cross section in comparison to them that interactions can't take place. This means that our detectable universe is just a frequency subset of a much larger frequency continuum composed of many levels. As a matter particle's motion is increased toward the speed of light a greater portion of that motion is transferred to its fourth and fifth dimensional motions. The extra fifth dimensional motion causes the curvature of the matter particle's enclosed path to increase, which causes it and thus the matter particle to become smaller while the increased fourth dimensional motion increases the frequency of the energy photon contained within the matter particle, such that the proper angular motion component is preserved to maintain the matter particle's stability. When it is traveling very near the speed of light, this makes it possible for it to interact with higher frequency energy photons and matter particles of the next smaller structural level, which can allow it to gain enough more motion from them through interactions to allow it to transfer into that level from ours. A similar transfer method can work at the other end of the frequency spectrum of our particles to enter the next larger level.

              My point about the stars was that if matter/antimatter particle pairs can just popup from the sub-quantum condensate, from motion induced pressure changes, and they then come together and annihilate each other and are converted into EM radiation (energy photon(s)), then in a gas that contained a great amount of motion, such as in a star, one would expect a very large number of energy photons to be created in a very short time by that method in addition to those that are created by the fusion process. This great amount of energy would greatly overcome the pull of gravity and the star would explode. This would apply not to just a few stars, but to all stars. Most of the stars that explode do so because they have used up most of their fusible atoms and can no longer generate enough energy to counteract the pull of gravity. They then collapse due to gravity. This causes a type of expansion that depends on the star's mass, etc., which could be an explosion of one type or another.

              5. In the Scriptures It says that God introduced motion into the universe when his Spirit moved upon the face of the waters that are a part of the background structure of the earth that we cannot detect. This would have created the field (sub-energy) particles that are an image of him. Next the part of him called the Word said "let there be light" and there was light. This would have created the energy photons by adding more motion to some of the sub-energy particles. The light (energy photons) is an image of the Word. Finally God (this would include all three parts of him including his body) separated the light from the darkness. This would have added an extra motion to some of the energy photons to create the matter particles, which would have made them become dark because the photon within each of them became trapped within the matter particle in its enclosed path and, therefore, it would no longer be free to travel and interact with other entities and transfer the information about one entity to another one as light photons normally do. The matter particles are an image of his body. After that he used these created entities to construct the rest of the universe. There is much more detail presented in the Scriptures, but this comment is getting very large so I will end it now.

              Sincerely,

              Paul