The Ultimate decidability, computability, and predictability of all things and processes. by Paul N Butler

Paul Butler

Essay Abstract

Man tends to look at things in ways that are not the most productive to continuing maximum scientific advancement. My point in this paper is that it is not possible for man at this point in the total range of his long term scientific development to be able to understand the end point of this range (What he will know at his maximum development level.) because he has not yet come to know the existence of and to understand many things and their relationships with each other, which makes him still blind in many areas. I try to point out some of man's weaknesses and make some suggestions of needed changes, but paper length limitations allow only a brief overview of such things. I believe it can still be of some help and more may be able to be answered in comments.

Author Bio

The author has long been interested in understanding the fundamental structure of the universe. Part of that endeavor has been devoted to understanding Man and those things that hinder him from maximum scientific development.

Download Essay PDF File

Shawn Halayka

Dear Paul,

Have you ever considered a gravitating body to be a process? How about a test particle in the presence of that process: the closer the particle gets, the more its process is interrupted by the gravitating body. The time slices reduce in frequency, and thus the process runs slower.

With love,

- Shawn

Paul Butler

Dear Shawn,

I looked at your paper and in it you express a desire to understand the density of dark matter. I presently concentrate on the structure of normal matter and once that is understood it is then possible to get an understanding of what is actually being detected and being interpreted as dark matter and how that works. That being said, gravity is a large scale field generated at the lowest level by the cyclical flow of field particles as they are channeled through matter particles by the three-dimensional enclosed cyclical motion path of the photon that is contained to travel through that path by the particles fifth- dimensional motion's cyclical transfer of motion into each of the particle's lower three dimensions, which causes the photon's motion path to change from a straight line path in some direction at the speed of light to a curved three-dimensional enclosed path, which we call a matter particle . This flow of field particles through the matter particle is modulated by the photon's fourth-dimensional motion, which effectively causes it to vary from a zero-field flow density to a maximum flow density and back to a zero density in a continuous cyclical pattern. The net effect of this is to creates a series of field particle spheres outward from the surface of the matter particle that vary from a zero density to a maximum density and then back to a zero density as you travel either directly toward the particle from any direction or away from the surface of the particle in any direction. The field flow through the matter particle has an input on one side of the particle and an output on the other side, but the input and output continually change their positions on the particle's surface as they follow the photon as it travels around its enclosed three-dimensional path. This field is the matter particle's internal field and it is what keeps matter particles in the nucleus of an atom from directly interacting with each other and the variable density field spheres make up the matter particle's external field structure. The innermost high-density sphere contains the matter particles of an atom and keeps them from escaping. The other spheres capture and contain electrons in the low-density areas between the high-density spheres. When two protons approach each other with enough kinetic motion to pass though each other's external fields into the center low density area, but do not have enough kinetic motion to go back out through the other side of the external field spheres, their external fields combine together to form a single external field around them and they are contained by the innermost high-density field sphere of this external field. Thus, an atom is born. When two atoms that have outer electron spheres that are not filled come together to form a molecule, their outer field spheres are joined together down to and including their outer electron spheres. This allows the outer electrons to flow between the two atoms, which aids in the joining of the atoms together into a molecule. Larger scale fields are also created that keep larger scale objects joined together to form them into larger structures. Even extremely large structures, such as galaxies contain large scale field structures as can be seen in the arms of spiral galaxies, etc. Gravity fields are merely extensions of these large-scale field structures. As you can see there are many cyclical processes that take place in the production of field structures from those at the matter particle scale to those at the galaxy level and beyond. And, yes, when these processes interact with each other they do cause changes in the motions of the entities involved.

Time is not a dimension as many believe. It is merely a comparison of motions, which may contain different motion amplitudes (speeds) in their passage through distances. We live in a motion continuum. All of the field particles, energy photons, and matter particles are composed completely of motions. We always live in the present, which is the current positions of all of the motions in the universe. The past is all of the sets of motions that were once the current motions, but they no longer exist because all of the motions have now moved from those past positions to their current present positions, so you cannot go back into the past. The future is all of the sets of motions that do not yet exist, but will exist when the motions have moved from where they are now in the present into one of those future sets of positions. You cannot go into the future because the motions aren't yet positioned into those places. When you begin to look at the complexities that you would get into if there were actually a time dimension it soon becomes clear that it would be impractical. As an example, if any one motion in the whole universe changed from one position in space to its next position, there would have to be a whole new complete copy of the universe made to store that time when that motion change occurred to allow anyone to go back or forward in time to when those specific motion conditions existed. This would produce at least an almost infinite number of universe copies. Where would all of the motion come from to produce these universe copies? If all of them were produced at the beginning of the creation, then we have no free choice because we are just parts of the frames of a form of movie. In order to be able to go into the future, all of those future motion condition sets would need to already be there from the beginning, so a very early time traveler could go to anywhere in the future. There are, of course, a great many more such problems with the concept, but I will stop there for now.

I will give you one interesting concept to ponder on, however. As you increase the kinetic motion of a matter object to nearer and nearer the speed of light more and more of that kinetic motion gets transferred to the matter particle's fourth and fifth dimensional motions. The increase in the fourth-dimension motion increases the frequencies and decreases the wavelengths of the photons in the matter particles. The increase in the fifth-dimensional motion increases the curvature of the photons as they travel in their enclosed paths, thus resulting in the particles getting smaller. If you traveled fast enough to become one tenth of your normal size and you took a measuring stick with you, you can see how a foot to you would be much smaller than it was before you started increasing your speed. Since time is measured in one way or another by motion through a distance, you would also measure time differently.

With Love,

Paul

Shawn Halayka

Hi Paul,

I beg to differ about our interpretations of time. Would you care to read another paper of mine?

https://vixra.org/abs/1812.0423

- Shawn

Shawn Halayka

P.S. Are you familiar with the `light clock' thought experiment?

Paul Butler

Dear Shawn,

I looked at the papers at the link that you provided to me, but they did not mention time. They were all different iterations on the topic "The curvature and dimension of a closed surface".

I may be somewhat familiar with the "light clock experiment", but tell me how you understand it to be done and the outcome results and your interpretation of what the results tell us.

With Love,

Paul

Shawn Halayka

Dear Paul,

Please read the last paragraph on page 5. Time is orthogonal to space, but the length of the basis vector is variable. There was no time at the beginning of the Universe.

The light clock is basically a process that consists of a photon bouncing between two masses. The faster the light clock travels through space, the slower the bounce rate. Thus time is dilated.

My apologies if you already know these things.

- Shawn

Paul Butler

Dear Shawn,

It is true that there was no time at the beginning of the universe because time is a measure of motion through a distance (D= MT, Where D= distance, M= motion content or speed, and T=time, so, T=D/M. Instead of using a rate such as D/T like miles per hour, which includes time in it also, I use a standard motion content for comparison. You could choose for convenience a unit of motion content that equals a familiar current unit like 1 mile per hour to equal 1 unit of motion content. I call a motion's motion content its motion amplitude as that expresses its quantity value within the overall range of motions. So more correctly M= motion amplitude. If all motions contained the same motion amplitude, there would be no need to consider time at all. If someone asked how long it took you to get to a meeting with him, you could just say five miles because all trips of five miles distance would be equal. Time is mainly needed to compare motions of different amplitudes. That is why until motions were introduced into the universe there would be no time because time would= distance, which might have existed in the dimensional structure divided by motion content, which would be zero. Any number divided by zero=zero. Time would, therefore, = zero. It is easy to see that time is not some self-existent entity because it requires a spatial system with at least one dimension for it to contain distance and motion within that spatial system to exist and as I mentioned earlier it is of no practical use unless the motions do not all contain the same motion amplitude. This means there must be at least two motions of different motion amplitudes for time to be useful. As you can see, there is no need to consider time as being a separate dimension. No one has been able to go back in or forward in time to bring anything back or to even look into the past or the future from the present. There is no real observable evidence of time being a dimension. Things like the light clock experiment do not show going back or forward in time, they merely show a difference in the measurement of time due to a change in distance. As a matter particle's velocity increases toward the speed of light, some of the added motion is transferred to its fourth and fifth dimensional motions. The fifth dimensional motion is important here because it determines the curvature of the photon that is traveling the cyclical three-dimensional path that creates the matter particle. The greater the fifth dimensional motion is, the greater is the curvature of the photon's path. This effectively makes the matter particle smaller. This means that any large-scale object composed of matter particles also becomes smaller. Someone on such an object would still measure the speed of light as about 186,000 miles per second, but his miles would be smaller than it would be for the observer that is not traveling. Energy photons and field particles do not contain the fifth vector velocity, so they are not affected in this way. If a person were to look at a beam of photons that were all of the same frequency and then speed up toward the speed of light, he would see that the frequency of the photons in the beam was decreasing because he would be getting smaller compared to their wavelength. There would also be changes in his relationship to fields, but I won't go into that at this time, but it is important to understand in the long run. That is all that I can give out on that topic for now, so I will have to hope you can figure it out for yourself from here. Just remember that a slowdown in the mechanics of a clock does not equal proof of a time dimension. If there were a time dimension it would have to contain complete copies of the universe for every change that occurs in any motion anywhere in the universe. All of these copies would need to have been created in the beginning in order for anyone to be able to travel to anywhere in the past or the future. This means that every motion that we make in our lives is already recorded in the time dimension, Therefore, we have no free will or ability to do anything except what is already recorded. This could only occur if it was preplanned by someone with great intelligence and power. Which would mean that God does exist and created it. Not only that, for him to not only create the very large universe that we see, but also to create an almost infinite number of copies of it with just one motion's position changed in each of them from the previous one, he would have to be very great to be able to control the manufacturing of it and to supply all of that material to build it. There would also need to be other mechanisms to control the sequencing through the universe copies from the beginning to the end, since we don't see all of the universe copies or frames that we are in at once, but just sequence through them from beginning to the end. Since we don't see things just popping in and out of existence randomly, but all things that we see move, do so in an orderly manner that we can measure, etc., the sequencing has to be of whole frames in order into and then out of what we call reality. Since we don't normally see things randomly speed up or slowdown the sequencing through frames must continue at the same rate. Since the sequencing is of whole frames, there would be no way to separate the motions that you are made of from the frame that you would be in at any point in the sequence and go to any other frame. If in some way you could do that, the frame that you went to would not be activated by the sequencer, so it would be a still frame. If in some way you could change anything in that copy, it would not change anything in other copies because they would not be joined except by the sequencer. if you went into the past, the sequencer would not go there again. If you went into the future it might change things when the sequencer got to that frame, but they would be changed back when the next frame was displayed. There are many hypotheses about these things, but I have not seen any that would actually work. Remember that a satellite that shows slower time has not disappeared and gone back to the past and then later come back to the present, but has continued to be in the present and the slow down is just due to its greater velocity. This means that there is something about traveling at a greater velocity that slows down the motions of things that travel that fast. Of course, the time dimension concept goes contrary to the concept that nature choses the easiest and most direct path to accomplish anything. A motion continuum is much simpler and more direct and certainly requires much less material to build.

Paul

Satyavarapu Gupta

Hello Dear Old Friend Professor Paul N Butler,

In your Bio you wrote wonderful words "those things that hinder him from maximum scientific development." Man should come over them. And I am also interested in understanding the fundamental structure of the Universe.

I discussed the similar things in some other words in my essay...where I just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the " real open thinking" is supported. Have a look at my essay please.

"A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

And again you are exactly correct in saying"Only through teaching love for one another."

Wow!!

=snp.gupta

Paul Butler

Dear Satyavarapu,

I am glad that you recognize some of the problems that currently exist in the scientific community. It is true that the necessary changes will only occur if people truly learn to love one another. I have found that there is only one way to acquire that kind of love and most don't go where they can get it.

I read your paper and it did not seem to cover any new information from that which was in the paper we talked about earlier, but most of it seemed to be referring to various links, which I have not yet had time to check out. Have you seen any observational experiments yet that show frequency upshifting of photons that travel toward a massive object like a star and if so, does it check for down shifting as the photons travel away from the massive object? If I remember right it seems to me that the other question that I had was with the idea of no collisions between bodies, since we see collisions all the time around us. You can't play billiards without the balls colliding with each other. On larger scales, pictures have been taken through telescopes of galaxies colliding, etc. It may be that I just need a more detailed understanding about that concept. How do you define that no collisions between bodies in your understanding? If you have found any new concepts that weren't in your previous paper, what are they.

Have you ever noticed that wow is mom upside down?,

Paul

Satyavarapu Gupta

Dear Prof Paul N Butler

.......................... Your words......................

My reply.....................................

It appeared to me problems are more of ethical nature and most of researchers want to support Mainstream Physics, due to huge financial support available to it.

But what I don't know is why the main supporters go for mainstream only. Most Probably due to the prominence of Einstein and others

................. Your words......................I read your paper and it did not seem to cover any new information from that which was in the paper we talked about earlier, but most of it seemed to be referring to various links, which I have not yet had time to check out. .............................

My reply.....................................

This "Dynamic Universe Model Theory" was developed about 38 years back, the same algorithm and the same principles were used. The same SITA software was used throughout. The first computer was floppy based computer when first developed, upgraded to harddisk based PC, and finally to present day PC/ Laptop. Processors ranged from 8088 to Pentium to present day Intel Core i3 7130U CPU, 2.7GHz, with 4GB RAM. Same program, same algorithm.

This "Dynamic Universe Model" based on N-Body problem Solution and its SITA software gave consistently good results solved many UNSOLVED problems in Physics.

Though I did not get any type of support like ethical or financial or Moral, I continued without hoping for any back-patting ......

Here in this essay I just expressed my experiences I endured in my entire life .....................

That's why there is no change in the paper as we talked earlier, I just discussed ethics behind this "Dynamic Universe Model Theory"

I just divided my reply into different parts for better readability please,

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

Satyavarapu Gupta

Dear Prof Paul N Butler

................. Your words...................... Have you seen any observational experiments yet that show frequency upshifting of photons that travel toward a massive object like a star and if so, does it check for down shifting as the photons travel away from the massive object? .............................

My reply.....................................

I could not conduct any experiments due to my financial constraints; I don't have any information if some already did such experiment of frequency upshifting. Did you have any??

................. Your words...................... If I remember right it seems to me that the other question that I had was with the idea of no collisions between bodies, since we see collisions all the time around us. You can't play billiards without the balls colliding with each other. .............................

My reply.....................................

When bodies in somewhat equal in magnitudes of their masses will not colloid with each other and form a big lump. They just try to rotate about each other. When the masses have difference in in large orders like a stone and earth, they will stay near each other and rotate combinedly. There will not be any big collapsed lump of all the bodies in the Universe. All these masses will rotate in a dynamic Equilibrium.

................. Your words...................... On larger scales, pictures have been taken through telescopes of galaxies colliding, etc. It may be that I just need a more detailed understanding about that concept. How do you define that no collisions between bodies in your understanding? .............................

My reply.....................................

I also saw some photographs like that, From the earths point of view they appear to be collapsed. BUT BOTH GALAXIES WILL HAVE DIFFERENT REDSHIFTS, INDICATING THAT THERE IS RADIAL DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM.

................. Your words......................If you have found any new concepts that weren't in your previous paper, what are they. .............................

My reply.....................................

I worked out a new paper on ORIGINS OF COSMIC RAYS...PLEASE GIVE YOUR mail Id , I will send you. I don't know how to send that paper via this forum

Best regards

=snp.gupta

Paul Butler

Dear Satyavarapu,

1. You are right about the problems. As I covered in my paper the root cause is that man has laws written into him that are contrary to the laws that are in accordance to love for one another. This causes men to act in ways that are not best for others or even themselves in the long run. It is right that most researchers want to support mainstream physics because they want to get the financial support to live off of and to do their research. They do this because they realize that the rules of those in control are such that if they present anything contrary to mainstream physics concepts, they will not get that support. Those in control made those rules to support their own public credibility and financial situation because they realize that if some new concept shows that they have made errors or if the new theory fills in blanks in understanding that they were not able to, they will appear to be less competent than the new person who could correct or fill in with new information. This reasoning is valid to them because of their built-in law that self-survival is more important than group survival and progress. Only love for others can overpower that law.

2. It looks like your hypothesis is still the same and you still have not seen any experimental evidence for the concept that light photon's frequencies are increased when they approach a large mass and are not decreased again as they later travel away from the large mass. I have not seen any such evidence either.

It is possible to propel two drops of water of equal mass toward each other with very low velocity, such that when they come together, they will form a single larger drop. If it is done in the earth's gravity field you have to be high enough up in the air that they have time to come together before they hit anything else. At a larger scale, many pieces of rock hit the earth every day. Most of them are very small, but some are large enough to cause wide spread damage. I believe that you are right that there will not be any large collapsed lump of all bodies in the universe. The universe will end long before that could possibly happen.

I am not sure if you are asking me for my email address or my postal address, but if you give me your email address, I will send it to you.

Sincerely,

Paul

Martin Staveren

I do not understand the zero-pollution method of hydrogen gas production. How is this very high frequency radiation going to be produced? By electricity? And where does the electricity come from? From a nuclear power plant?

Paul Butler

Dear Martin,

The high frequency radiation is produced by electricity and the electricity is produced by solar energy collection. Since solar energy collection does not generate pollution and since the burning of hydrogen gas also does not produce pollution, but only produces water, the whole system produces pollution free energy. The amount of solar energy collection just has to be enough over the amount that is immediately needed to supply current electrical grid usage to allow for the production of enough hydrogen gas to supply hydrogen gas powered electrical generators to produce electricity when the solar energy is not available like at night or is reduced below the amount needed for the grid like on cloudy days, etc. In addition to this, enough hydrogen should also be produced to power all motor vehicles. It would not be a bad idea to build nuclear power plants to supply electricity in case of a meteor strike or some other problem that would cause a lack of solar energy collection on a large scale for a long time, but they would not need to be completely implemented unless such a thing happened. In such a circumstance they would be preferable to use of fossil fuels that would make recovery time much longer due to their pollution production. Of course, there are other more advanced ways of producing electricity and motive power, but they are now considered secret and may not be allowed to be used by most people.

I looked at your paper. Generally, less than one hundred percent decidability, computability, and predictability, result primarily from one of two sources. The first is the current state of advancement of observational abilities. The ability to observe things with ultimate accuracy has not been achieved and likely will never be attained. As you mentioned the noise factor is one of many limiting factors that contribute to this problem. Over time observational abilities have increased based on new conceptual advancements, but could only reach one hundred percent accuracy if we get to where we know everything. That is not likely happen any time soon. The other problem is the incompleteness or the inclusion of errors in conceptual understandings. As an example, in Quantum Physics The observations of the various outcomes to particle collisions and their probabilities compared to each other have been mathematically coded to create a model that is very accurate, but it is not based on any understanding of the internal structure of the particles or of their external interaction mechanisms between them. This has led to much confusion and even the belief by many that it is impossible to ever know these things. It should be apparent to anyone that the theory is greatly lacking in its understanding of why only the certain outcomes can happen and why each outcome has a certain probability of occurrence. This is due to two problems. The first is that man currently does not know how to observe the particles in adequate detail to understand their internal and external behaviors. The second problem is that man has not looked adequately at existing observable information to allow for the formation of an adequate hypothesis to allow for the development of new observational equipment that can give a better observational look at the particles structure. This second area is where the conceptual work needs to be done in order for man to make further advancements. This area is what I am currently working on. This is much like developing a molecular theory before molecules could be observed or like the development of atomic theory before atoms could be observed. Some of the things contained in the early theories turned out to be wrong or lacking in details, but they ultimately led to a better understanding of those structures. Currently the same thing needs to be done concerning the structure of fields, energy photons, and matter particles that make up the next level of structure.

Sincerely,

Paul

Martin Staveren

Dear Paul,

Yes, I know of the idea to rely on solar energy. But to collect sufficient solar energy, large surface areas would be needed and of course also sufficient sunshine. On a small scale it would certainly be possible, but for e.g a city as London? In my experience, such implementation details are generally lacking in political discussions of the energy transitions. In the Netherlands we should all drive an electric car by 2030; I have no idea how that should be implemented.

In his original article Heisenberg refers to the Ritz combination principle; the atomic transition frequency is linear in the energy difference. He then tries to reproduce this with Fourier series, as exp(a)*exp(b)=exp(a+b), which looks like the Ritz principle. But as the result is not entirely correct, he simply changes it to make it match the data. The Pauli exclusion principle is similarly based on observations: two electrons in an atom are apparently never in the same quantum state. This is just an observational fact, established on the basis of atomic spectra, not an explanation. We are now 100 years later, and there is still no explanation. So I agree that we can only make a model based on what we can observe.

Thanks for your answer and regards,

Martin

[deleted]

Dear Martin,

I have seen estimates that it would take coverage of about one percent of the earth's surface with solar to generate all of the power that man currently uses. If it is done right, much of this area could come from already used land areas, such as on houses or buildings or on their properties. This would be best because the energy removed by the solar panels would be used and then returned to the same place that it came from. Heat could also be harvested from the panels to heat water and the buildings as necessary. It is true that much work will need to be done to convince those in charge to do such things. The alternative is to use up the coal, oil, and natural gas and have many people die due to not having the fertilizers, etc. that those resources provide. Electric cars will only be able to take the market when one charge can give a range of 300 to 400 miles and a recharge can be done in the time that it takes to fill a current vehicle's gas tank. That will be some time yet. That is why I think that hydrogen is the way to go at present for vehicles.

When you understand that the structure of an atom contains a complex field structure and that the electron is composed of motions that are continually moving around in it and has its own field structure, it is easy to see that the math needed to model the complete structure will be more complex than what is currently used by man to try to understand it. I find it very interesting that man has not long ago determined that energy photons and matter particles and angular and simple linear motions are all constructed of the same basic material, which is motion because the results of high energy collisions between matter particles, like two protons, yield large numbers of matter particles, and energy photons that could only have been constructed of the great amount of linear kinetic motion of the initial two protons. Once this determination is made and it is determined how simple linear motions can be combined to construct energy photons and matter particles, it is an easy step to see that fields can be constructed out of simple linear motions.

You are welcome. I like to pass on what information that I can to all that can and will receive it.

Sincerely,

Paul

Paul Butler

The machine had logged me out before I sent the previous comment, so it came out as anonymous.

Paul

Martin Staveren

Anything that is possible with hydrogen gas should be done, although transporting it from Africa, where the sun shines, to the industrial centra will probably be rather expensive.

I find the language that an "atom contains a complex field structure" somewhat confusing, as according to me a complex field is only a representation of whatever happens inside an atom. So what does "contains" mean? Interestingly, in the 19th century the older generation thought that the Maxwell equations were nihilistic, as the oldies thought that it made no sense to have waves without having an oscillating medium. You cannot have water waves without having water, either. Einstein simply stated that there is no ether. So we have waves without there being anything waving. I love the Maxwell equations, but also wonder what we mean with the word "physics". I have recently been reading about thermal field theory, which Is based on analytic continuation of time; when time is made into a complex variable, then the methods of quantum field theory apply to statistical mechanics. This is possible simply because the Z (which comprises t) of statistical mechanics looks like the action of quantum field theory, except that the latter comprises "it". so if you make time t into a complex variable then it works. This is purely a mathematical trick, as nobody understands what a complex time should mean.

Satyavarapu Gupta

Respected Prof Martin van Staveren,

The following message was sent to me by Professor Paul N Butler to post as reply, he sent me by mail. This problem happened to me also twice

Best Regards

=snp

...............................................

"Dear Martin van Staveren I have a return comment to you ready to send, but I can't login to my account because it says that it does not recognize my email address. I will get it to you if FQXI gets the problem fixed. If you or anyone else wishes me to send any answers to any comments you send to me on my paper's page before then, you can put an email address in the comment to me and I will send my comment to you that way. This puts me at a great disadvantage in this contest, since you can't make any comments to anyone without being able to first login to your account."

Sincerely,

Paul

Satyavarapu Gupta

This is in reply to your post Dated Mar. 24, 2020 @ 21:26 GMT

......................

Respected Professor Paul N Butler

.............. Your words...................................................

My reply.....................................

Well said, love is expiring and Money is ruling.............................

..............Your words.................... It is right that most researchers want to support mainstream physics because they want to get the financial support to live off of and to do their research. They do this because they realize that the rules of those in control are such that if they present anything contrary to mainstream physics concepts, they will not get that support. ........................... My reply.....................................

Yes you are correct, People should not do any thinking on their own, Main stream is correct, that's it. No arguments.

................. Your words......................

Those in control made those rules to support their own public credibility and financial situation because they realize that if some new concept shows that they have made errors or if the new theory fills in blanks in understanding that they were not able to, they will appear to be less competent than the new person who could correct or fill in with new information. This reasoning is valid to them because of their built-in law that self-survival is more important than group survival and progress. Only love for others can overpower that law.

............................. My reply.....................................

Well said, I will add, if the mainstream fails, pour more money and cook up results. There no love for humanity or scientific progress.

I will continue to next post please...

Best

=snp

Satyavarapu Gupta

Respected Prof Butler

This is in continuation to my above post

Thank you for all your best wishes for my essay, I am giving my highest appreciation to your excellent essay

................. Your words......................

How can I? I don't have finance. I retired from my simple steel plant job in 2014. I don't have any earning except my old savings, prices are going up. Where can I get money??? Can you please support me to do this job????

............... Your words ......................

In a Static Universe Model, when all bodies left on gravitation they will collapse into a LUMP. But Dynamic Universe model simulations showed when the masses are not EQUAL even to the extent 0.00000000000000001 % (This is the accuracy of My PC, 16 digits) difference in the masses of the individual bodies, they will start rotating about each other and move Dynamically. They will never collapse into lump even after trillions of years. They will be rotating about each other in a Dynamic Equilibrium.

When the bodies are of unequal masses like earth and man or Jupiter and neutrino , the larger mass will change the path of the smaller body depending on its velocity.

Your case of equal water droplets, when they are directed toward each other exactly, they will form a bigger droplet. When there a difference of in their masses even to the extent 0.00000000000000001 %, they will rotate about each other. They will not collapse.

................. Your words......................

I am not sure if you are asking me for my email address or my postal address, but if you give me your email address, I will send it to you.

........................... My reply.....................................

My address is

SNP.Gupta

1B, Street 57, Sector 8

Bhilai 490006, C.G.

India

WhatsApp / Phone: +918770714799

Mail: snp.gupta@gmail.com

Best Regards

=snp

Paul Butler

Dear Satyavarapu,

Thank you for giving Martin van Staveren my request for him to give me his email address, so I could email my reply to his comment to him when I could not logon to my account. I can now log on again so you can now send me comments again on this page if you wish to and I will try to respond to them. Of course, if there is anything that you would like to talk to me about that you would not want others to see, you can contact me on the email address that I gave to you. Would you mind if I enter my reply to your last comment to me that I emailed to you on this page for others to see also? I also just checked and don't have the email from you that contains your new paper. You can email it to me at the address that I gave to you in my email to you.

Sincerely,

Paul