A New Philosophy of Space and Time

Gravionic Model Of Physical Systems (GMOPS)

 

The unification of spirit and physical energies under GMOPS

 

Table of Contents                                                        Page

 

1.  Assumptions                                                                2

2.  The Gravionic Model of Physical Systems                  17

3.  Cosmology                                                                35

4.  Gravionics and Physics                                               51

5.  Gravionics and Spirituality                                           61

6.  Logic and Music                                                         83

7.  Gravionics and Philosophy                                          94

8.  Gravionics and Life in the Cosmos                              99

9.  On Evolution                                                            107

10. Respect for Diversity                                               123

11. Saving Humanity                                                      131

12. My Life                                                                   150

 

Summary of Principles and Definitions                            163

 

Infinite Child – A poem for children of all ages.               166

 

 

Chapter One

Assumptions

 

I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world. Albert Einstein

Imagination without knowledge is useless.  μmike

 

Assumptions play a key role in understanding space and time, as well as all science and logic. All of human thought, including mathematics, can be viewed as models of nature, always at least once removed from the actual reality. As we make these models, both within our individual minds and as the body of science, we have certain assumptions that guide us in the use of these models. After many years of accepting and using these models, mankind sometime loses sight of the assumptions that form their foundation. I believe that all past models of nature and science are based on assumptions that may prove false on closer examination.  This probably means the logic that follows those assumptions is also not valid.

 

As a personal example, in the early 1980’s I had a computer company and I installed many custom systems.  I had studied logic and assumptions in school and become very logical in my thoughts.  Most people associate logic with Spock from Star Trek, but he was never as logical me.  This was probably because the people that wrote his lines had never systematically studied logic as I had, in both philosophy and electronics.  One can make mistakes in logic when it is studied as philosophy, but when one deals with electronics, nature never forgives a logical mistake.

 

After installing a computer in a lawyer’s office, I left the system working perfectly.  The next morning I received a call from the very irritated owner telling me that I had sold him a “bad” computer.  I immediately went to his business location and as I walked in the door to his office, he was standing beside the computer flipping the on-off switch back and forth.  He was very angry and said “See, this computer doesn’t work.” 

 

Having been trained in logic, my first concern was always to check that the computer was getting the proper power.  As I looked over the situation, I noticed that the computer was unplugged from the wall outlet.  I immediately walked over, plugged in the computer, and then turned on the power switch.  The computer came up quickly and was working properly.  His cleaning woman had unplugged the computer during the night as she was cleaning his office, and that was the reason for the failure.

 

There were two bad assumptions that occurred in this scenario.  The first was the assumption that I would sell a “bad” computer to anyone.  The second bad assumption was that the computer was plugged in.  After so many years in computers I had become aware of how important assumptions are in the solving of logical problems.      

 

In the new model of space and time that I have proposed, I’ve looked at the assumptions that mankind has used to make his models of science and discarded those that seem to have problems.  The logic that follows is based on a new set of assumptions. 

 

As we examine the assumptions that have been used in science for the last few hundred years, we see that some of these assumptions might be wrong.  It seems that assumptions are handed out in college and then never revisited by student or teacher.  What assumptions could be considered bad?

 

I would propose that the following assumptions are incorrect:

 

1. Space is square and can be accurately represented by Euclidean math.

2. The speed of gravity is infinite in distance and affect.  Or the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light.

3. If a particle has a beginning, then all particles have the same beginning.

4. Our number system can accurately and completely represent nature.

5. Our models of science are the reality.

6. Our experiences of nature are complete and represent all there is to experience.

 

The assumption that space is square (Euclidean) needs to be examined. As mankind rose to awareness on our small one gravity (1 G) planet, it looked like all of nature could be described using points and straight lines. Nothing seemed more intuitive, because we perceive that we see straight lines everywhere.  We build most of our structures with “straight” boards or metal parts and we make right angles the heart of our construction. Can you even imagine building a house without straight lines or right angles?

 

As an example, the right triangle can be represented by notes of the music scale.  What further proof would one need to see how closely Euclidean relationships match nature?  Surely the “straight” lines in this triangle are a part of nature since many of us recognize the distinct notes of the music scale, which seem an integral part of the very cosmos itself.  So do straight lines really exist?

 

A pendulum has been used as an example of a straight line in nature.  If we hang a weight from a string and put it in motion, it appears we have a straight line from the point of attachment to the weight.  We can make calculations based upon this “straight” line and even make predictions about the real world based on the interval of the swing of the pendulum.

 

But as we examine the system more carefully, one can actually see that the string bends slightly when the weight reaches each of its turning points, so even from this macroscopic viewpoint, the line is not straight.  Even more careful examination, such as under a low power microscope reveals that the string itself is made of fibers, which stick out in every direction and what we once thought of as a straight line, is now made of numerous “straight” lines from the individual fibers of the string. 

 

If we magnify further, we continue to see that the fibers are made of smaller substances called molecules and that each molecule is connected to others, but no where is there a straight line.  Molecules are “round” or spherical structures and attach to each other through bonds that might be straight.  Yet even these bonds flex and if we examine the system close enough, we see no true straight lines at this scale.

 

Even further magnification shows that the molecules are made of atoms and the atoms are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons, all of which do not make straight lines.  Each of the bonds that hold these systems together also flex and bend as different forces are applied to them so finding a straight line here is impossible also.

Apparently each of these objects is made of even smaller parts, called quarks and these all have bonds that are not straight either.  The closer we examine nature, the more we see that straight lines do not exist.

 

Newton certainly held the viewpoint that straight lines exist.  But Newton was limited by the viewpoints and mathematics of his time.  Euclidean math and space was accepted as the norm during this time and there was no awareness of the problems of assuming that straight lines exist.

 

It wasn’t until Einstein’s work that humanity realized that not all space was square. Einstein showed that gravitational fields somehow "bend" this "square" space.  The larger the gravitational field, the more the space “next” to it is bent. And the more we observe nature, the more situations we discover where space is not square. Our global positioning satellites, with their precision receivers, must use Einstein’s relativistic math (to show the bending of space), since the correct position of the satellite cannot be determined accurately by assuming straight space and using Euclidean math. We must take into account the curvature of space to accurately determine the correct position of any satellite of our Earth.

 

Many more examples can be given, but in the end we must wonder if the assumption of square space is accurate.  If square space exists outside of each mass, one must ask the question “Where did this square space came from?”  There has been no measurement or experiment that suggests this square space exists, only that we see the “bending” of this space the closer we get to any mass.   The assumption of square space seems to reside totally within the imagination of mankind and the current models he has adopted to explain the world around him.

 

At one point in our history, most humans assumed that the world was flat and that they would fall off the edge if they traveled too far from home.  At other points in history, mankind assumed that the entire cosmos revolved around the Earth, since that seemed to explain everything.  Others have assumed that the Earth was created from nothing 6,000 years ago while others assumed it was created from nothing 13,700,000,000 years ago.  Just because most humans assume something doesn’t make it true and the history of science has been the overturning of bad assumptions as the evidence shows nature to be other than first assumed.

 

The next "bad" assumption is that space forms itself instantaneously, without using any time. When mankind wants to solve a problem in science, we never take into account the speed of the formation of the coordinate system itself. Whether in our minds or on paper, we assume that the coordinate system exists before our problem even starts. The assumption is then also that nature requires no "time" to form its own coordinate system, so we never include a "speed of formation" in our equations describing nature. If nature does require "time" to make its own coordinate system, then our assumptions are wrong and any models based on these assumptions must, logically, have flaws.

 

The only “thing” that connects all mass in any universe is the connections of gravity that form the bonds between these masses.  If the gravitational system represents nature’s coordinate system, as I have proposed, then I would suggest that it must form itself faster than the fastest object that might move through the system, or contradictions would occur. The movement of all radiation occurs at the speed of light and that is the fastest thing we “know.” So I would suggest that the gravitational system must form itself faster than the speed of light, but how fast would that be? 

 

Newton thought that gravity acted “instantaneously” on all objects that exist.  He said that the force of attraction became less as objects moved further apart, but he thought that this force acted instantaneously (without time) upon every mass in the cosmos.  He could see no limit on the attraction of gravity and therefore its affect on all masses.

 

Einstein disagreed and said that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light.  He assumed that gravity was much like radiation and that it traveled in waves that moved at the same speed as light.  He never considered the possibility that gravity was nature’s coordinate system and that it must in fact “form” faster than the light which moves through it.

 

Since human beings are not used to thinking about a coordinate system that must form itself in real time, there has been much confusion in science about the "speed" of gravity. Most people associated with science take Einstein’s view and assume that the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light. But cosmologists assume the speed of gravity is infinite, since that is the only way that everything that exists could have a relationship with every other thing that exists.  

 

If the speed of gravity does have a limitation in how fast it can transmit coordinate information, then the further we travel away from any particular mass, the longer it would take for the coordinate information to be passed through the system.  There would then be a limit on how far any one mass could affect another mass, since all masses in the cosmos are in constant motion and that motion would soon outdistance the coordinate information being passed. 

 

The single big bang model certainly assumes an infinite speed of gravity.  If there is any limit to the speed of gravity, then the single big bang model can not be true and some other model must be found to represent the infinite cosmos we see around us. 

 

Also, the assumption that everything that exists comes from a single point, would make that point a preferred frame of reference and Einstein said there are no preferred frames of reference.  He clearly showed that every frame of reference (mass) is valid and all calculations can be made from any frame of reference that exists.  The assumption of a single big bang and its single frame of reference goes against the very foundation of relativity, since the heart of relativity is that all frames of reference (coordinate systems) are valid.  Every frame of reference is valid because each real physical system makes its own frame of reference (space) by the connections of gravity that extend outward from the physical system, and by each connection of gravity that binds its mass together.

 

An example of the confusion over the speed of gravity can be found in electronics by the use of measurements and through a simple thought experiment. In electronics I was taught that the potential difference in a circuit is felt instantaneously (Newton’s view) upon activation of the circuit, while the electron flow is at, or near, the speed of light.  But I was also taught that a gravity wave travels at the speed of light (Einstein’s view) in front of any radiation leaving a transmitter antenna.

 

For our thought experiment on the first case, imagine that you have run two wires between the Earth and the moon.  On the moon, you place a light bulb between the two wires, while on Earth we have a battery where one wire attaches to each terminal. In one of the wires, we have placed a switch. According to classical electronics, once the switch is thrown, the circuit would know of the potential difference immediately (instantaneously), while the electrons would flow at or near the speed of light and there would be a measurable time before the light lit.

 

In a contradictory example based on Einstein’s work, I was taught that once a circuit containing a radio transmitter is engaged, a gravitational wave front precedes the electromagnetic radiation from the antennae, but both travel at the speed of light. This seems a direct contradiction. How could circuits with wires have "speeds" that seem infinite, yet gravity "waves" can only "move" at the speed of light?

 

The answer is that all gravitational events take place at the speed of gravity, which is somewhere between the speed of light and infinity.  This means that both Einstein and Newton were wrong, but each being wrong on different sides of the issue. As we have discussed, the speed of gravity must be faster than anything that might move through the system, so in this instance, it seems Newton was closer to the truth than Einstein.  Einstein’s proposal that gravitational waves exist and that they travel at the speed of light has never been confirmed by experiment, although many have tried.

 

In the first example when the switch is thrown, the potential difference is "known" at the speed of gravity, whatever that might be. The gravitation connections in the metal of the wire transmit this information. Since the speed of gravity is much greater than the speed of light, it seems instantaneous, yet it can’t be.  Some time must be involved in the transmission of this information.  This same phenomenon is shown by “entangled” masses where information is transmitted through the gravitational connection between the masses at a speed that is greater than the speed of light.  This has been shown many times in many experiments and seems to prove that Einstein was wrong on this issue.

 

In the second example, the gravity "wave" (actually it would be a gravitational connection and not a wave) would leave the antenna at the speed of gravity and create the space between the antennae and its surroundings.  This space would then attach to the surrounding objects (such as receivers) at this “fast” speed, while the radiation passing through these connections of gravity would proceed at the speed of light or less. Thus, if we assume that the speed of gravity is somewhere between the speed of light and infinity we remove the apparent contradiction in electronics.  Our experiments with nature show that nature updates her coordinate system at a speed faster than the speed of light, but less than infinity.

 

Other examples can be found to support the concept that the gravitational system updates itself faster than the speed of light. Binary star systems show evidence that internal events of one star can be "felt" by the other star at a speed that is much faster than the speed of light.  Also, we now see that many researchers are sending information faster than the speed of light by using “entangled” masses.  These are merely masses with a gravitational connection between them and the information is passed through the gravitational system at the speed of gravity.  This simple explanation of the speed of gravity resolves many of the conflicts that appear in science today, including the problem in quantum mechanics where particles seem to “appear“ out of nowhere.

 

If the speed of gravity is faster than the speed of light, then how fast is it? Since very little thought has been give to this problem by humanity, there is not much evidence to draw on and measuring the actual speed of gravity must await the full awareness of the problem. Two suggestions have been given as to the “speed” of gravity. One states that the speed of gravity must be at least Cx1010. My own suggestion is that the speed of light versus the speed of gravity can be shown by the relationship between C and C2, since this relationship exists in Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2.

 

When I suggest that the "speed" of gravity is C2, many mathematicians and physicist disagree strongly because one cannot square a speed.  The answer to the dilemma lies in the assumptions of math. Mankind tends to forget that all thought, including mathematics is a model of reality, not the reality itself. As an example, electron flow is the opposite of current flow, yet electronic equations work to describe real electronic circuits and their operation. We don’t discard this "false" system of electronic math because it does work to help us solve problems. But at best, the mathematics is only a model of reality, not the reality itself.  If you don’t believe this, then try measuring real circuits and compare it to what you have calculated.  The two are never exactly the same, although they are usually close enough to be of practical use.

 

Now let us further examine the speed issues in science. All real events in nature appear to take place in a two-part sequence. First the connections of gravity connect at the speed of gravity and then other energies flow through the system at the speed of light or less. All pregravionic science has ignored the initial connections of gravity (the C2 world) and only studied real events after the connections have been made (the C world). This is why there are so many problems in pregravionic science, such as the conflicts between quantum mechanics and relativity.  The assumption that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light has led to this problem, even though the evidence from the real world clearly shows that something is traveling faster than light.

 

If one tries to "look" at the C2 world with C instruments, it is no wonder that everything looks a blur. All quantum events are first and foremost gravitational events and the elusive energies that flow between masses are gravitational energies moving at the speed of gravity. This is how energies and masses can seem to appear out of nowhere, when in reality these energies are moving at the speed of gravity and we are just not aware of the entire reality.  Bad assumptions usually mean bad science.

 

Now let us examine how C2 can be the speed of gravity. The mathematicians are correct when they say I can’t square the speed of light. But this contradiction only applies within their mathematical models which are just representations of the reality. These models break down when one is considering the very formation of the coordinate system (space itself). Since all of human math is based on the coordinate system existing before the problem, this system can never perfectly represent what nature is doing.  Nature has to make her coordinate system as she goes.  This is a very basic conflict between reality and man’s mathematical models of this realty.

 

A mathematician has told me that he deals with the speed of light daily. He works with very small distances. In his work, the speed of light is 3. His argument is that the speed of gravity can’t be 9, which is the square of 3. His claim is also that he doesn’t work in Euclidean math. Let’s look philosophically at his argument.

 

If we represent his problem on paper or in our imagination, we would have to draw (or imagine) the coordinate system and then draw the two points the light is moving between and then draw a straight line between them to represent the path of the light.  Does this already sound like there are bad assumptions?

 

He is measuring the speed of light between two points and whether he is doing this problem in his mind or on paper, he is still assuming the two points are separated by a straight line and that the coordinate system existed prior to his starting the problem. Drawing a line between the two points to represent his problem ignores the assumptions we have been discussing. Nature has no straight lines and everyone now admits that light does not travel in straight lines since gravitational lens are a known and measured phenomenon which clearly show that light follows the gravitational lines of force.  If space itself is bent, then the light passing through this system is also bent.

 

Also, we must be aware that nature doesn’t have a number system.  If she uses the connections of gravity as her coordinate system, then our number system is just a representation of nature’s system.  Our number system is imperfect and the choices of the numbers we use to represent nature are just our models of nature.  Light never has a speed of three and the speed of gravity is never the square of that number.  But the ratio of the two speeds probably can be accurately represented by the ratio between C and C2.

 

What is perfectly clear at this point is that the problem above involves an assumed Euclidean coordinate system that existed before the problem began. In other words, his coordinate system is infinitely faster than the light traveling through his problem. Also he has assumed that the space between the two end points is a straight line. Neither of these assumptions appears true. He may not consciously be involved with Euclidean (square) space, but it is everywhere at the heart of his assumptions. I would argue that it is also at the heart of all pregravionic science and is why there are so many contradictions in "modern" science and why these assumptions must be continually examined by science if we are to truly understand nature and how she works.

 

The acceptance of mathematics as being the reality itself is a bad assumption of “modern” science. A simple examination of mathematics reveals several areas where mathematics and reality are different.  Again, these areas each represent assumptions by many scientists that all mathematics is the reality, when they should assume that the mathematics is a model of the reality and not the reality itself.  If mathematics is based on false assumptions, how can it accurately represent nature?

 

All of modern mathematics require zero as the first number, since zero defines the axis of the invisible/infinite coordinate system that Euclidean math must use as its frame of reference of reality.  Again, remember that this coordinate system always exists outside the problem being solved and thus is assumed to exist at an infinite speed in relation to the problem.  This is obviously where Newton got the idea that nature could also form its coordinate system at an infinite speed and that the mass of one gravitational system could act on all others at an infinite speed and distance. 

 

Yet when we look closely at nature, she doesn’t seem to have the luxury of a number zero.  Although the Roman numeral system doesn’t have a zero, our Arabic number system does and this is what the science of our day uses.  No matter what base system we use, the first numeral is always a zero.  Mankind has ten fingers so we have decided to use the base ten as our “normal” number system.  What are the numerals for this system?  They are zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and nine.  If we want to make the next number, we just add a one to the ten’s place and start over with a zero in the one’s place and we have the “number” 10. The rest of the decimal (base 10) number system just continues to follow this pattern.  

 

In computers, we use zeros and ones to define two different states and thus can store or manipulate any data using this system.  The process is just the same as the decimal system, except in binary; there are only two digits, zero and one.  When we count in binary, we start with zero.  When we want the next number we move to one.  But when we want the next number, since we are already out of possible choices, we do the same as in base ten.  We move a one to what would be the “ten’s” place in base ten and then put a zero in what would be the “one’s” place.  Thus we arrive at the number 10, which is actually the equivalent of 2 in decimal.  So every number system in science starts with the number 0 because we must represent the beginning of our imaginary coordinate system.

 

Since nature can’t have a zero, she must use something and something else to store information.  DNA is an example of nature’s storage system. With DNA, nature uses four different molecules to store information about the reality around itself.  With these four base molecules, nature could store any kind of information.  But this system would not have a predefined coordinate system and thus would have no number zero. 

 

Since nature doesn’t have a number system with a zero and she doesn’t have a “built in” square coordinate system, she must use something else to represent the relationship between things that exist.  I think she uses the gravitational system, making individual connections of gravity (called gravions) between all masses.  This is how she can tell where “things” are and the relationship that exists between those things that exist.  She uses something for this process and there is never a zero in nature, since things must have an existence before nature can use them to represent something else.

 

Another example of the difference between nature and the number system is the use of imaginary numbers in mathematics and other sciences to model real world events.  In electronics, certain circuit characteristics can only be calculated by using imaginary numbers.  The first imaginary number is “i” which represents the first number that multiplied by itself equals -1. In “ordinary” numbers, when we multiply two negative numbers together, we always get a positive number.  But we can not represent all of nature with just “ordinary” numbers.  In imaginary numbers, the square root of -1 is i.  This “number” does not exist in the “natural” number system so mankind just made it up.  The interesting fact is that in electronics and other places, this number is actually useful and is used every day to calculate aspects of modern electronics.  Doesn’t it seem strange to you that imaginary numbers represent the “real” world?  The point being made is that mathematics is only a model of reality, never the reality itself.

 

I hope we have seen how important assumptions are in any model of scientific systems.  If our assumptions are incorrect, how can we possibly hope to accurately describe nature?  If our assumptions are wrong, how can we ever hope to be logical? And if we are not aware of what assumptions we are holding, how can we call ourselves true scientists?

 

Chapter Two

The Gravionic Model of Physical Systems

 

I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's. William Blake

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. All progress, therefore, depends upon the unreasonable man. - George Bernard Shaw

You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus. Mark Twain

 

Einstein thought that space was square and somehow gravity bent this square space. My question would be, "Where did this square space come from?" The assumption has been that this square space existed before nature put any objects in this space to "bend" it.  But how could nature accomplish this trick?  How could there be square space before there were any objects? In addition, there has never been any scientific evidence that this is true, only that it appears true when mankind uses his imagined Euclidean system to represent the real world. 

 

After thinking about this problem and realizing that there is no square space out there waiting to be bent, I wondered where space could come from.  If space is not “outside,” the mass, then maybe it comes from the mass, the only other possibility that I can imagine.  I would argue that all space that we can know is made by the connections of gravity, that all space arises from the mass itself, is never straight and that this space requires time to form and its effect is neither instantaneous nor infinite.

 

As we look to nature we see that every mass defines its own space and takes that space with the mass, no matter where it moves throughout the cosmos. Every sun and every planet moves through the cosmos but its space goes with it.  The Earth orbits the sun, but the moon orbits the Earth, even as the Earth moves around the sun.  The Earth created space needed to orbit the moon follows the Earth wherever the Earth moves.

 

To make this personal, I could take any of you to any place in the cosmos and you would carry your own space with you. I could orbit satellites around you; no matter where in space and time you might find yourself.

 

If space does arise from the mass, and is not already there to start with, how could space arise from the mass and where does the energy come from that creates this space?

 

I would propose the strong force, the force that keeps masses apart, is actually a part of the gravitational system and that all bonds between all masses are gravitational bonds.  These bonds gain their energy from the mass and they must propagate at the speed of gravity, since other energies later flow through these bonds at the speed of light. Gravity not only has the job of bringing things together, but is also responsible for keeping masses the proper distance apart, thereby defining the space between the two, always at the speed of gravity.  

 

In the picture above, we see the first gravions.  I don’t think that a single particle can have a gravion and can only have enough gravity to define its own space.  Its space would be much like the peel around an apple.  A neutrino is probably an example of a single mass without gravions.  Two particles must work together to form the first gravions.  The two masses are represented in green, while the first gravions are shown in blue.  The gravion directly between the two masses is a straight gravion (string), also called a self-gravion since it defines what masses are part of the same “self.”  It is shown as straight in this diagram, but in nature the evidence indicates this gravion actually bends when other forces are applied.  This gravion also represents what has been called the strong force in pregravionic science; since it keeps these two particles connected but doesn’t allow them to come too close. 

 

The second gravion is a looping gravion (superstring), also called an advertising gravion since it advertises to the rest of the cosmos the space that is created by this real physical system.  I believe this space (gravion) is created by the straight gravion in an effort to balance the distance between the two masses.  This gravion represents the traditional space and energy that has been called gravity.  Gravity is not some “sheet” that existed before the mass, but is created by the interaction of more than one mass and is composed of individual and distinct connections between individual and distinct masses.

 

As we view nature, we see that larger objects define larger spaces. The larger the mass, the greater is its sphere of influence, or the farther away we could orbit other masses around this object. As the distance between individual masses (quarks, atoms, and molecules) within this larger mass come closer to each other, the space around the collected mass becomes greater. Therefore, I think that the strong force is balanced by the creation of space outward from each object, as shown by the first gravions model. As the individual masses are pushed closer to each other by the accumulation of new mass, the strong force has to "work" harder to keep the masses apart and apparently accomplishes this task by the creation of space itself.  Thus all space is actually made by the individual connections of gravity which are called gravions.

 

Einstein proposed that the energy of any mass (physical system) could be described by the equation E=mc2. However, even a superficial examination of nature shows that this equation cannot be accurate. Take the example of an atomic bomb. Supposedly, the energy comes from the mass, even though the principles involved show that the energy comes from the breaking of bonds that exist between the masses. It has been recognized for years that all mass has gravity. So if we are destroying some mass to create the energy of the explosion, what about the energy of the gravity that is associated with the mass we just destroyed? Nowhere does E=mc2 address the gravitational properties of all mass. If all bonds between all masses are gravitational bonds, then the energy for the bomb comes from the breaking of gravitational bonds, not from reducing the energy of the mass. The correct unification equation is therefore E=gmc2.

 

Another example of the deficiencies of Einstein’s equation comes from sunlight falling on the Earth. By Einstein’s equation E=mc2, the Earth gains a calculated mass (20 pounds I believe) every day from the sunlight (energy) being converted to additional mass. My question is, "Doesn’t this new mass also have gravity?" If I were to take a 20-pound rock and add it to the Earth’s mass (such as a meteorite landing on Earth) everyone would agree that the mass and therefore the gravity of the Earth would increase. Every increase in mass results in an increase in both the size and intensity of its gravitational fields, even though it may be small and hard to measure. Shouldn’t the case of sunlight falling on the Earth receive the same consideration as the meteorite falling on Earth? If the Earth’s mass is increasing, by whatever mechanism, isn’t it necessary that the gravitation structure also increase? E=gmc2 solves the problem, since any increase in the energy of the system, by whatever means, increases both the mass and the gravity of the system proportionally based on the size of the physical system.

 

Another example comes when we view the gravity of the planet Earth.  Everywhere we see that gravity varies on the planet depending upon the density of material under that specific part of the Earth.  The gravity at the top of a mountain is different than the gravity at the base of the mountain.  Everywhere, for every particle, nature calculates the amount of gravity based on the particles that are directly involved in the calculation.  The picture shows a gravity map of the planet Earth, with the different colors representing different amounts of gravity and clearly shows how the gravity of the planet Earth varies greatly over its surface.

 

If we look at E=gmc2 we see that it correctly represents the energy of all real physical systems. Some of the energy is in the mass and some of it is in the gravitational space created by the mass.  In the equation the C to C2 relationship expresses the relationship of this energy between the mass and gravity. The total amount of energy in the system (mass and gravity) is in the range of C2. The ratio of energy between mass and gravity varies through this range according to the size of the accumulated mass. The larger the mass the more energy moves from the mass into the gravitational parts of the system.

 

Single particles, like neutrinos, have most of their energy in the mass, since by definition; there are no connections of gravity with other masses. The ratio of energy in this system would have most of the energy in the mass, with a small portion still defining its own gravitational space, since it must have both to be real. In the apple example, the skin would represent the gravitational space, while the rest of the apple would represent the mass.  Within the range of C2, only a "C" proportion would be in the gravitational space (skin), while the rest of the energy for this physical system would be in the mass (apple).

 

At the other end of the spectrum, let us look at a super massive black hole containing the mass of trillions of suns. In this case, the situation is reversed as most of the energy is now used to define the gravitational space of the object. In this system, the mass energy would be the "C" component, while the rest of the C2 energy range would be in the gravitational space, since black holes can define an immense amount of space. I believe that all real physical systems are represented by the C to C2 relationship, with C being the minimum condition for both mass and gravity energy within the range of C2.  Philosophically, mass represents those things that exist in nature and gravity represents the relationship of those things.

 

I also believe that what powers every real event in every universe is the movement of energy from the mass to the gravity.  As we look at nature, we see a continued battle between mass and gravity for the energy of the system.  If we examine the life of a sun, we see gravity pulling particles together to form the initial body.  As more mass accumulates, gravity causes the atoms to begin to form reactions and more complex atoms are created by combining simple atoms together.  Our sun is continually making energy by combining hydrogen atoms to make helium (the fusion reaction).  But as we follow the process, we see that over time too much mass accumulates in the heart of the star and eventually the star explodes, often creating even higher elements in the process.  The balance of the system has reached a turning point and the battle between mass and gravity is turned in favor of the mass.

 

In pregravionic science, one of the “rules” is that any isolated system is always moving towards disorder.  First of all, in gravionics, there are no isolated systems, so there is a problem before we even examine why this might not be true and may be another bad assumption.  The reason science has accepted this “rule” is because under E=mc2, every time we see a reaction in the real world, we see that m goes down during the reaction.  But under E=gmc2, we have a completely different scenario.  For every real reaction, the energy is leaving m, but instead of going nowhere (as in pregravionic science), it actually goes into the g component of the equation.  In nature, the connections of gravity, or the g component of the equation, describe the order of the system, and not the amount of energy that is contained in the mass.  Under gravionics, every universe is actually moving towards order, not disorder.  This will have a definite affect on spirituality and God as discussed in a later chapter.

 

Our example of the sun making the more ordered product of helium from hydrogen shows that each universe is always moving towards order, if viewed from the proper perspective.  If we examine the Earth itself, we see that when it first formed, there was little order.  Now life is slowly converting the entire planet into a living being and a single leaf has more order than existed at the planet’s formation.  Life itself is making more and more order and sentient life should continue this process of order, if we are to be spiritual and moral.

 

If we wanted to build a new science that didn’t use all of the bad assumptions and false rules, what principles of nature could be surmised from our discussion?

 

The first principle of nature I would propose is that the minimum condition for existence in any universe is identity and relationship. We have seen that mankind uses an implied Euclidean coordinate system for all of science. But if nature’s coordinate system is the connections of gravity and if gravions (space) form from the mass and share energy with the mass, then mass and gravity are actually two aspects of the same thing and can not be separated and studied apart.

 

This is one of the prime failings of pregravionic science.  Many physicists and mathematicians study and write equations that describe a small portion of reality and they think their equations are the reality itself.  For any equation to be “real,” it must carefully contain all the components of E=gmc2.  A real equation must show the total energy of any system and how it is distributed between the mass and the gravitational connections.  It must show the range of C to C2 and it must show the formation of the coordinate system (the g portion of the equation) occurring at C2, while all other energies flowing through the system must flow at the speed of light (C).  If an equation describes less, it can not truly represent a real physical system or process.  To date, E=gmc2 is the only “real” equation that exists in science.

 

Under gravionics, there is no field of particle physics, since one can’t successfully study mass without considering its gravitational component.  The exception might be something like a neutrino, but if one thinks about it, one must have some connection with this mass to study it and any connection must eventually be a connection of gravity, nature’s coordinate system.  In quantum mechanics we see that once we “touch” a physical system, we inherently change the system.  This is because we must connect gravitationally with the object before it is a part of our “universe.”  When we see energies apparently appearing out of nowhere or entangled particles reacting at a speed greater than the speed of light, what we are seeing is the gravitational system at work.  All quantum events are first and foremost gravitational events.  And it is clearly working at a speed greater than the speed of light.

 

The second principle that nature must follow is the concept that any coordinate system must form itself faster than the fastest thing that might move through this system. This concept is so fundamental that it is assumed in all of pregravionic science by the implied preexisting Euclidean coordinate system, yet no modern scientist actually seems aware of the principle.  We have seen that experiments, including our study of electronics, have shown gravity acts faster than the speed of light.

 

The third principle of nature I would propose is that in an infinite cosmos, all things must cycle.  This can also be said the other way; if all things cycle, then nature is infinite.  This will be discussed more in the section on cosmology.

 

Gravionics is the study of the individual connections of gravity and the masses they connect. Each connection is called a gravion.  In pregravionic science, before the awareness of the gravitational system, gravitons are the supposed carriers of the gravitational force, but the very concept of a graviton is a philosophical impossibility. The graviton is apparently a particle that carries the gravitational force, yet no evidence of its existence has ever been shown in any experiment.  One would also have to ask where these “particles” come from and even pregravionic science is full of the bonds that exist between masses.  I would only claim that each of these known bonds is a gravitational bond and that they derive their energy from the mass and that they form at the speed of gravity and that they are an inseparable part of the mass.  Gravions do not exist without mass and mass does not exist without its gravity.

 

To better illustrate this conflict, let’s imagine we are going to build something using a child’s toy called Tinker Toys™. This play set consists of hubs and sticks. The sticks that connect each hub define the relationship of the hubs. If one wanted to build something, one must use both hubs and sticks. If you only have hubs, you can’t build anything. If you only have sticks, you can’t build anything. Only if we have the two together can we build an object with Tinker Toys.  Therefore, it would make no sense to have a world made of hubs, but say that the relationship between them would be defined by more hubs (gravitons).

 

Nature has much of the same problem. In comparing Nature to Tinker Toys, we see that mass in analogous to the hubs and the connections of gravity are analogous to the sticks, even though nature does not use straight sticks. Nature also needs both mass and gravity to build the structures we see around us. In nature, as in Tinker Toys, the connections define the relationship between the masses. To think that a particle (graviton) can express relationship is a basic misunderstanding of the very workings of nature. The word "graviton," the particle that carries gravity, is probably the only single-word oxymoron in our language, since its very meaning conflicts with the laws of nature.

 

To illustrate that every bond between every mass is a gravitational connection, I’ve used the example of a race car and its driver.  To include fission reactions, one could change the story to someone driving a nuclear submarine, but the point can be made by my example of a race car.

 

I would like to very carefully examine the forces involved in a racecar and see if gravity “knows” every reaction and event of the racecar, including the movement of the car and its parts.  If there is not an example of a real event or process that gravity does not know about, then you must accept my argument that gravity does know about each and every event that is real in our cosmos and that every bond between every mass is a gravitational bond.

 

Now to set up our imaginary racecar, we must imagine some super accurate scales that exist on the racetrack that can give us an instantaneous measurement of the weight being applied to each wheel of the car, whether it is standing still or moving. Since we have access to this super sensitive scale, we can measure the force of gravity at each of the four corners and thus calculate the total for the vehicle.

 

To start our thought experiment, we would first weigh our vehicle completely empty, without a driver. This would be our base weight. Remember that since the Earth’s gravity varies from one location to another, we could have different "tares" at each of the four weigh stations, even if the weight were theoretically identical at each wheel. But for our thought experiment, we can assume them equal in a single location and our experiment would still be valid.

 

Now we will begin doing things to our car and see if gravity "knows" about each and every event. The first thing I would like to do is paint the car. Painting is a chemical reaction. Will gravity "know" that the paint has been added?  Well, yes. Gravity does know about paint. Take the space shuttle as an example. The only shuttle to ever have a painted external fuel tank was the first. All the others were not painted to save weight so that less fuel would have to be burned and more payloads could be carried. Gravity definitely knows about paint and I would contend, all chemical reactions must be a part of the gravitational system and every chemical bond must be a gravitational bond.

 

And what would you say about dust? If there were small particles of dust sticking to the side of the car by static electricity, would gravity know about these particles? Yes it would. The dust sticking to the car would show up on our scales, so gravity must "know" about electrical events as well.

 

Next let’s stick a magnet to the side of the car. Would that magnet register at each of the four wheels where our super accurate gravity meters are straining to catch every change in the gravity of our vehicle? Of course it would. Gravity "knows" about all events of magnetism. Magnetism is an aspect of gravity and gravity’s job must surely encompass keeping tract of all events of magnetism.

 

To reinforce the fact that gravity must know about events of electricity and magnetism, look at the engine of the car. When the electrical system of the car ignites the fuel within the engine, gravity is created within all of the moving parts of the engine. The pistons have more and less gravity as they move through the cylinders, the crankshaft gathers gravity as it spins, and all parts of the drive train weigh more because they are turning than if they were sitting still. (By the way, Einstein said that we can’t tell the difference between gravity created by spinning something and gravity created by any mass, such as a planet.  Now we know why.  The energy of the spinning system is transferred through the gravitational connections and distributed according to E=gmc2.)

 

The car itself weighs more when it is moving. If we put our scales on a high bank of the racetrack and weigh the car as it goes by, we see that the gravity of the vehicle has increased because of the actions of burning the fuel and creating gravity within the car and its components.

 

What happens to the car when a driver is added? Does gravity "know" that a living being is in the car?  Yes. Now the human being can think to himself, "I want this car to start moving" and can then put into action a series of processes that cause the car to move and to create more gravity. Gravity knows the weight of the living being added to the car, even if we just consider the mass of the human. But more importantly, the human beings thought must also be a part of the gravitational system, because the gravity (or G forces) is created just by the actions of a human thought. Human thoughts and emotions must also be a part of the gravitational system.

 

The entire act of driving a racecar represents the process of understanding gravity and controlling it. The actions of the driver of the racecar are one of using the chemical and electrical reactions in the human mind and body and transferring energy to his foot which presses on the accelerator.  Then we are taking carbon parts from ancient species and mixing these molecules with oxygen and capturing the resulting energy to turn mechanical parts.  Gravity is created from the thoughts of the driver.  Gravity must know about all of these events and must be measuring them at the speed of gravity.

 

All good drivers drive by the "seat of their pants." What does this mean? It means that the driver is actually feeling the connections of gravity that exist between his mind and his body and the car he is driving and the pavement he is driving over. He can "feel" when a tire is about to break lose and loose its traction, because every event in his mind, every event in the car, and every event in the race must involve the connections of gravity and must be a part of the overall gravitational system that is updated at the speed of gravity. A good driver is good because he has a better feel of his car and the race tract and that feel must be a part of the system of gravitational connections.

 

Next let’s examine electromagnetic energy further. According to Einstein, if we let light shine on the car, some of it would be converted to mass and the car would therefore have more mass. But if it has more mass, doesn’t it have to have more gravity also? Wouldn’t the car weigh more, if our scales were accurate enough to catch it? Yes, gravity would know about any changes in mass to our vehicle.

 

As a further example, take a photoelectric cell and put it on the car. Would a cell that is exposed to light and is making electricity weigh more than one that is in the dark and not making electricity? If you believe in Einstein’s energy to mass equation, then you must answer yes and again I have shown that every event, every reaction, every process, and in fact, every real thing in the cosmos must have gravity as a component of the reaction or event. It can’t be real otherwise. The connections of gravity define those events that are real in our universe.

 

And as a final proof that energy, mass and gravity are all parts of the equation, look at the racecar from an overview. As a philosopher, I look down on the racecar and its driver and here is what I see. First of all, the connections of gravity within a human mind had to imagine and then build this car. The only thing that caused this car to come into existence is the thoughts and dreams of human beings using their minds.

 

Look at the fuel for the car. It is made of hydrocarbons, which are the remains of ancient creatures that once lived on the Earth, although some now think the Earth came with a set of hydrocarbons that arose who knows where. Although we now know that some forms of life get their energy from chemical and heat sources and not from the sun, most of the energy for life on our planet comes from the sun. The hydrocarbon molecules of the race car fuel originally got their energy when life converted electromagnetic radiation into chemical bonds within the living being through the process of photosynthesis. When the being died, that energy remained stored in those bonds and was compacted and preserved by the gravitational pressures exerted on the material by the planet Earth.

 

Man then recovered these materials and refined and purified them to fit his needs. In the racecar, these materials are combined with oxygen and burned with a chemical fire to extract the energy from the bond. And what is the end result of this process? The end result is the creation of gravity in the mechanical parts of the automobile by the thoughts of a human being. Energy is added and mass and gravity increase and the driver experience G forces.

 

I think I have proved that mass, energy and gravity are one and Einstein proved that energy and mass are one, so I think that all should accept my contention that E=gmc2 is the correct equation for the unification of the forces of nature. Gravity must be involved in every physical event or reaction and you can not name an event that gravity does not have a role. That role must always involve keeping tract of all things "mass" and gravity accomplishes this role by continually making and breaking gravionic connections which connect and propagate at the speed of gravity (c2).

 

More light can be shed on gravity by looking at Newton’s third universal law of gravity. In it he says that "each and every particle of the universe has a force of attraction (gravity) that is proportional to the size of the bodies and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies." What are the assumptions here? The first assumption is that gravity can be infinite in speed and effect, as discussed earlier. How else could every particle of the universe have an effect on every other particle unless gravity was able to solve this problem instantaneously without regard to time?

 

Under gravionics, every particle doesn’t have this effect on every other particle. Only those particles with connections of gravity (gravions) have this effect on each other.  Also, under gravionics, there is a limit to the size and influence of any physical system.  Think of an asteroid that has come from another solar system and is now flying through our solar system. Does it have an effect on the Earth before it enters our solar system? Probably it doesn’t. Does it have an effect on the Earth when it is outside the orbit of Pluto? Probably it doesn’t. Is there a moment when it first comes close enough to Earth that the two bodies do begin having an effect on one another? Certainly there is that moment, the moment the first two advertising gravions connect between the two bodies. Is gravity discrete and made of individual connections? Yes it is.

 

So the first assumption contained within Newton’s universal law of gravity is incorrect. Notice it is the same assumptions that cosmologists have used in forming the single big bang model. For the model to have any validity gravity must be infinite in speed, else every particle in "the universe" could not possibly "know" about every other particle, since most particles would be too far apart to have connections of gravity, and thus any influence.

 

All real events, reactions, and processes in the cosmos must involve the connections of gravity and the relationship and organizational information that are passed by those connections of gravity.

 

If we examine the scientist of the world, we find two main camps: those that want to deal only with mass, ignoring the gravitational components of nature, and the string theorists (the mathematical model of gravions) who want to build everything out of strings. This is exactly akin to trying to build Tinker Toy models without using both the sticks and the hubs. If string theorists want to imitate nature correctly, the strings must arise from the mass at the speed of gravity and every aspect of E=gmc2 must be respected.

 

At this point, we could now begin re-defining some of the terms used in trying to understand nature. Many present concepts in science have no clear definition and without such, many ambiguities have emerged. One such example is time. What is the current definition of time? Everyone thinks they know, but try to define it.

 

Definitions:

 

Mass - That part of nature that represents identity.

 

Gravity - That part of nature that represents relationships between mass.

 

Gravion - Any connection of gravity between masses.

 

Space - All gravions between all masses.

 

Time - The changing of the connections of gravity.

 

C - Speed of light – A cosmic constant

 

C2 - Speed of gravity – A cosmic constant.

 

In solving problems of space and time, mankind is free to use his almost infinite imagination as an aid in this process. Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge. However, imagination without knowledge is useless and any attempts at understanding nature are bound to fail if there is no awareness of the natural assumptions, limitations, and processes that mankind must imitate if he is to understand nature’s problems of space and time.

For many years I have wandered in the wilderness as I have pondered the philosophy of space and time. On many occasions, Mother Nature has been kind enough to show me many hints about how the cosmos works. I have always tried to keep my eyes open and learn from all that she has shown me. I have believed in miracles and sought the truth as I developed the gravionic model. It had to be big enough to hold both God and science and I think it does the job very admirably.

 

I was walking one day several years ago as I was trying to put pieces together for the gravionic model. What I needed was a good model that would help not only educated people, but people of all ages when it comes to understanding the role of gravity in our lives. Low and behold one day, as I was wandering, I came upon a rock with a hole in it. When I first saw the rock, I couldn't remember ever seeing a rock with a perfect little natural hole that went all the way through the rock. Then I noticed that it appeared to be about the same diameter as my stick. I had bought the stick many years before when visiting the Taos Ski Area in New Mexico. It is a very crooked stick, but I couldn't resist trying it in the hole in the rock. When I put the stick in the hole it immediately stood upright all by itself. The angle of the hole in the rock was exactly perfect to fit the crook at the end of my stick. When I saw this, being a person born into an infinite cosmos, I immediately thought "My God, it's a miracle!" It was many days later before I began to realize how big of a miracle it actually was.

 

The symbolism of this moment thus represents all of nature, because it is the symbolic joining of mass and gravity in the same scientific system. The rock and the stick show us that we must study both the mass and the gravity at the same time if we want to study any real physical system in its entirety. The rock represents the masses of the cosmos and the stick represents the connections of gravity of the cosmos, or gravions. Because mass and gravity are always proportional and always represent the two aspects necessary for existence (identity and relationship), then all real things must be made of them and to study the whole "thing" you must study both the mass and the gravitational connections.

 

 

Chapter Three

Cosmology

 

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. - Albert Einstein

When a finger points at the moon, the imbecile examines the finger. — Buddha.  564-483 BC

The stars are the street lights of eternity. – Rosicrucian

 

As a professional in the computer community for almost 30 years, I have learned how important assumptions are when solving logical problems. If one doesn't have a solid foundation of assumptions, then any logical house built on those assumptions is bound to crumble. Current cosmologist have made several bad assumptions, including the belief  that the entire cosmos was created by a single big bang which supposedly contained all the material of the cosmos, that something can come from nothing, that the speed of gravity is infinite, and by their very models, that the cosmos itself is finite. Evidence from the Hubble Space Telescope and other sources contradicts these assumptions, so all logical thought based on these assumptions should be questioned.

 

I would propose that the cosmos is infinite, Big Bang Events (BBEs) occur when the energies of black holes become too large to be contained within a single structure, that the speed of gravity is finite and equals C2, and that any single universe is limited to the amount of material that can orbit a common center.

 

The current model of cosmology is in a state of crisis. Evidence from the Hubble has been interpreted to indicate the universe is only 13.7 billion years old, yet we have stars in the Milky Way which are older, probably 20 billion years. Red giants are now thought to live a trillion (thousand billion) years.  The Milky Way and associated galaxies are moving in a manner which is inconsistent with the movement of matter ejected from a single Big Bang. Other evidence which is a problem for the current model includes observations of "clumpiness" at all levels within the Cosmos, of distant Quasars which have consumed entire galaxies, and galaxies which are too far away and too old to have been included in a single big bang only 13.7 billion years ago.  When calculating the age of "the universe" the age of the structures being viewed is never included.  We have structures that were at least a trillion years old when the light left them 13.7 billion years ago, and yet cosmologists insist the entire "universe" is only 13.7 billion years old (the distance to these structures). 

 

Here is a deep field picture taken by the Hubble.  The Hubble was pointed at an area of the sky that appeared to have no galaxies and then allowed to make a long exposure over several days.  At the end of that period, what did we find?  We found galaxies of all ages, including mature galaxies and galaxy clusters and galaxies colliding with other galaxies, all of which must represent ages that are far older than 13.7 billion years. 

 

How long would it take for these structures to start from elementary particles floating in the cosmos, later arranged into stars and later into galaxies and then galaxies clusters consuming other galaxies?  It would take trillions of years for this to happen, and then another few billion years for the light to reach us.  The single big bang model can not be possible.  The cosmos is infinite in age and distance.

 

The current model of Cosmology states there was a single big bang which contained all the material of the cosmos and occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. No mention is made of what existed before The Big Bang, where the material originated, or how the Event occurred. This is a serious flaw since it essentially relies on faith and not science as the answer to the ultimate question of creation. Fundamental Christians say that everything came from nothing only 6,000 years ago and “science” says that it was 13.7 billion years ago, but both ask us to accept this on faith.  I don’t see any difference between the two models except the number of years.  Any scientific theory designed to describe the beginning should have a valid mechanism to describe what happened before the beginning and where the energy came from that makes up the Event. Current theory basically says that everything just appeared out of nowhere and I find that explanation unacceptable and unscientific.

  

Since all material supposedly was created from the energy of this single big bang, all the material of the Cosmos should have a common origin and thus most of the material should be approximately the same age and this material should be expanding outward from that single spot where the event occurred. This is not the picture we see when we look at the heavens.  Cosmologists try to overcome this problem by stating that space itself is expanding.  Yet they have no idea what space is and how it could expand and this "space" has never been measured, except in their imaginations.

 

Current theory makes no statement of what eventually happens to black holes except a prediction that some of the material of the black holes "evaporates" due to Hawking's Radiation. This prediction doesn’t consider the fact that material is being drawn into these black holes at a rate which is far greater than any "evaporation" and that the "evaporation" only occurs when new material is entering the black hole.  It also doesn’t consider the fact that every physical system in the cosmos is moving and that all black holes will eventually come upon more mass, which it will promptly ingest.  The current view talks of black holes lasting 100 billion years into the future, but states the past only goes back 13.7 billion years. Current theory makes little mention of the interaction of black holes, how large black holes can become, or what might be their eventual end, except suggesting they "evaporate" back into space.

 

Current theory also ignores the cone of knowledge concept.  In philosophy and physics, we are always faced with a cone of knowledge which divides what we can know from the ultimately unknowable because of the limitations of the speed of light, the only way we "know" things.  If we imagine we are at the apex of the cone, we can only know those things within the cone.  These are the only events that light has had time to bring us the information about these events.  Everything outside the cone would be called the ultimate elsewhere.  Under gravionics, since the speed of gravity is faster than the speed of light, and since we can know information from the gravitational system, the cone becomes much larger but the concept remains the same.  We can only know those things within our own cone of knowledge.

 

The last major problem is the assumption that the speed of gravity is infinite.  Gravity is nature’s coordinate system.  The connections of gravity are how nature measures all physical systems and how they relate to other physical systems nearby.  Nature must use some "time" to update this system, and thus it is not infinite in speed.  All modern cosmology is built from Euclidean math, which assumes its coordinate system is formed at an infinite speed in relation to the problem being solved.  Human beings can imagine a giant coordinate system with the center being at the position of a single big bang and all space then being related to this point through this giant coordinate system.  But nature can't. 

 

As we solve the problem in our imagination, we never have to take into account the speed with which the coordinate system forms and updates itself, since it is infinite in our imagination.  Nature doesn't have this luxury.  If there is any limitation to the speed of gravity, then there is a direct limitation to the size and effect of any particular physical system on other physical systems.  If galaxies are far enough away from us, then they can not affect us and can't be in any relationship of expansion or contraction with us.

 

The only evidence for an expanding cosmos is the red shift.  Any number of explanations could result in the red shift being an indication of distance, but not direction or speed.  If the connections of gravity are stretched, then I would predict that energies would be shifted toward the red.  Electrical and magnetic structures in space (such as stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, black holes, etc.) could also cause the shifting of energy to the red as the light passes through these systems and is partially used up. These same processes happen in electrical circuits and could surely happen in space where all large structures have an electrical component.  The point is that any explanation for the red shift other than that these structures are moving away from us would completely invalidate the single big bang model assumption of a single expanding universe. 

 

I propose we view the Cosmos as infinite in size and age. One of the implications of this assumption is that we can never see all of the Cosmos. Another is that all of the material of the Cosmos could not have been contained in a single big bang so there must have been more than one. Additionally, if we don’t assume that a single big bang started everything, then we need a mechanism to explain how big bangs occur and an explanation of the motions of celestial objects which appear to be moving away from our Earthly viewpoint. Also we need to redefine the definition of the words "universe" and "cosmos" so as to better fit the new model of cosmology proposed here.

 

A Universe is defined as all the material which orbits about a common center.  This would make the largest universe equal to a super galaxy cluster.   The Cosmos would contain all the combined Universes. The Milky Way and all associated galaxies which are moving in concert with the Milky Way should be considered as the universe of our origin, while all galaxies outside this group should be considered as other universes, since there is no direct relationship between us and them. 

 

All of the "holes" in the cosmos now seen by 3D maps would represent positions where BBEs (Big Bang Events) have occurred in the past.  Under E=gmc2 the C2 component is a limit for all real physical systems and mass can never become too concentrated in the cosmos, else a BBE is forced.   The large stringy structures we see surrounding the holes occur because mass huddles around the edges of these Events.  Mass probably still resides in these “holes” but it is not connected by gravions and thus it doesn’t have any way of participating in the structures that we can see.

 

Edwin Hubble first observed that light was red shifted for distant objects and concluded that "the universe" was expanding and that a single big bang was responsible for producing all the material we can see both near and far. If we consider the cosmos as infinite, there arise several problems associated with the assumption that a single big bang created everything. First, we have not measured the distance and motion of all the objects that we have observed so we don’t know that all material in the cosmos is expanding or moving away from us. All we know is that the wave length of light is shifted more by objects which appear further away than objects which are closer to us. Other explanations could account for this shift.

 

Second, we can not even see most of the material of the cosmos (because it is outside our cone of knowledge), so how can we claim to know its motion? A third problem is that all of our observations eventually will prove to be "local" observations of the cosmos, since we are limited by our cone of knowledge.  A fourth problem is that an infinite amount of material can never be included in a single finite Event. And a fifth problem is that the limitations of the speed of gravity make it impossible for all the material we can now see to have the proposed relationships of expansion or contraction.

 

I propose that the Cosmos is much larger than any one big bang and that the movements we see are the results of ALL the big bangs which have come before and all the accumulated motions of masses interacting with each other. If you imagine multiple big bangs occurring throughout time and understand that they are distributing their material in every direction throughout the Cosmos, I think you will find that most objects will appear to be moving away from you, no matter what your position within the Cosmos.

 

I don't actually think a BBE is like an explosion, in the classical sense.  The actual event involves the movement of energy from an ordered gravitational system to one where each mass is now separate and independent of it neighbors.  I don't think this mass actually expands from its location, but rather it remains in its location. It is just not connected by gravions and therefore we can’t know about it.  Over time, other material will move into the “space” created by the BBE, and the “new” mass will eventually interact and begin making new ordered systems. 

 

Any material that is orbiting a BBE but not included in the Event, will be "shot" outward by the loss of gravitational connection to the black hole just turned BBE.  This would be similar to tying a rock to a string and slinging it around your head.  Once the sting is cut, the rock would fly away.  Thus the effect of any BBE would be to send material not included in the event outward, as if from an explosion. 

 

In the picture above, each peak represents a black hole in this galaxy cluster.  The center peaks are galaxies that have already gone “down the drain” and would not be visible as light.  However, each of the smaller peaks around the edges represents the galaxies we can see and they are orbiting the larger structure in the middle.  Since they are in orbit around this massive set of black holes, they are already destined to eventually “go down the drain” themselves.  A BBE occurs when one of these peaks reaches a maximum value (g has all the energy and m becomes an effective zero in E=gmc2).

 

There would be an event horizon to this Event and everything outside that horizon would not be included in the Event.  Once the Event occurred everything outside the horizon would be shot outward at a great velocity.  The Milky Way probably obtained its great velocity by just such a circumstance.  We were orbiting a large black hole(s) that went critical and our galaxy was flung off into space at a great velocity, relative to the position of the BBE.

 

Particles come into existence with most of their energy contained within their mass.   As the particle ages, more of its energy is transferred to the increasing number of connections of gravity which marks the passage of time for that particle.  In the end of time, for that particle, it finds itself in a black hole, where most of its energy is now stored in the connections of gravity.  This is the case in the picture above, except they have mistakenly labeled this picture as dark matter instead of black holes.

 

This picture was made by using the Hubble space telescope as the eyepiece of a 2 billion light-year-long telescope.  Multiple images (the effect of this giant gravity lens) of a galaxy 1 billion light years beyond this galaxy cluster were analyzed by computer to determine what gravitational situation would be necessary to distort the image to that seen.  This picture is the result of that computation.  In essence, we are seeing the instantaneous gravity picture of this galaxy cluster.  When we view this galaxy cluster with our telescopes, we see the light from this galaxy as it existed 2 billion years ago, while the picture above shows us the gravity as it exists today.

 

The people who made this picture have mistakenly called it dark matter, but the new philosophy of space and time precludes this possibility.  For any mass to have an effect on another mass there must exist at least one connection of gravity between the two.  Thus any dark matter floating free in the cosmos (such as neutrinos) would not have connections with our universe and would not "count" in the gravitation of that universe.

 

In the picture above, we can clearly see that the gravity represented is material that has already gone "down the drain" of the black hole.  We can tell this by the very sharp peaks.  The sharpness of the peaks indicates that these gravitational structures are very dense and are each black holes even though many have merged together to form this larger structure.  Almost every bit of the energy of these systems has already been converted from mass to gravity (or space).  There is just enough energy left in the mass to provide identity and that is what holds the entire system together.   At some point, one of the peaks will rise so high that the energy in the mass will reach an effective value of zero (in the equation E=gmc2) and the system will come apart as another big bang.  

 

Years before this picture was taken, I knew that these structures existed and that they existed for very long periods of time, from our viewpoint.  It was one of the best days of my life when I first viewed this picture, because it showed me a real life view of a system that I had imagined for years.  I was able to see how black holes bind to each other without being "swallowed."  One can see that the new black holes stack in around the sides and “protect” the original structure in the middle.  This is how black holes can become so large and collect so much mass without reaching their breaking point.  Remember, for a BBE to occur, one of the peaks must pass the limits imposed by E=gmc2.  

 

As we look at the physical world around us, we see that everything in nature has cycles. To think of the Cosmos as having only a single big bang with nothing existing before that event just doesn't seem to fit with the observations we make daily of the world around us. "What existed before the beginning?" is a valid scientific question that deserves an answer because all events we see in nature are cyclic.

 

Current theory says that a single BBE started everything. Current cosmologist must consider the questions posed by their finite cosmos model. It is not logically consistent to believe in an infinite Cosmos and a single big bang since this model involves a finite number of events, a finite expansion rate, and an edge by all accounts.  These are all indications of a closed set and all closed sets are finite.  The single big bang model implies a finite cosmos, something I find hard to swallow.

 

Cosmologist and astronomers are currently trying to measure the amount of mass in the universe to see if "the universe" is open or closed. In a closed universe, there is enough matter for gravity to stop the "expansion" of their imaginary single universe, eventually causing it to come back together. An open universe would be one in which there is not enough material to cause the universe to come back together, so the universe would just keep expanding.

 

The very nature of this theory speaks against an infinite cosmos and completely ignores the cone of knowledge, the speed of gravity, and the sphere of influence concept. If there is a value which represents the amount of matter required to close the universe, by definition the universe would have to be finite. Any defined amount of material would be finite, not infinite. One of anything can never be infinite. One of anything is not the way of nature, either.

 

It has been argued that it is not the amount of material, but the density that is being measured to decide the open or closed universe question. But that argument doesn’t make logical sense either. Since the cosmos is infinite, we can never measure the density of the entire cosmos because we cannot "see" everything which exists. This theory could only work for a defined space and the material contained within it. As an example, we could measure the amount of material we could see with the Hubble Telescope, but to accomplish that task accurately, the Hubble would have to look in every direction as far as it can see and account for all matter within that "box."

 

But what if we build a larger telescope and look further into space? Again, we can only arrive at a conclusion as to the status of that particular "box" and only after an exhaustive search of that region of space. We can not know what the status is of any larger "box" we might draw in our imaginations because we don’t know what exists outside the "box" we have measured. As our telescopes get larger and larger, the problem remains the same, only the dimensions of the "box" change.

 

Cosmologist have changed the numbers a great deal lately, but if the furthest thing we can see is 13.7 billion light years away, then we must assume we can also see material which is 13.7 billion light years away, in the opposite direction. That would mean that we currently "know" about a cosmos that is over 30 billion light years across, from the viewpoint of each "edge."  (This is older than 13.7)  Since this value (13.7 billion years) is the same in every direction, this would suggest that current cosmologist have us at the center of the cosmos again.  I thought we got rid of those ideas with Galileo.  In an infinite cosmos, there is no center, so we can't be there.

 

What triggers a BBE philosophically is when gravity eventually "robs" mass of all its energy (under E=gmc2) and philosophically and physically the gravions of the system have no place left to connect. The energy is then pulled back into the individual masses and the gravitational space once created by the structure vanishes.  The effective value of mass becomes zero in E=gmc2 and the equation comes apart at the seams.

 

Now let us examine the conditions surrounding these Events. Single black holes could become so large they convert by themselves to a BBE. But for the Event to occur, gravity must be increasing by the ingestion of new material into the black for it to pass the threshold.  If a black hole was just "sitting" in space and accumulating no new material, there would be no catalyst for the Event to occur. However, I suggest that BBEs are always precipitated by the accumulation of new material which finally pushes the mass/gravity relationship past its breaking point. The Event could occur during the process of drawing in new material or could occur by the collision of two or more super black holes with the mass/gravity equivalent of galaxy super clusters.

 

Since I first read estimates that the universe was 20 or less billion years old, I have never been comfortable with that estimate. Our solar system is 4.5 billion years old, yet is rich in all natural elements (including everything up to uranium), organic molecules, and possibly even life. The material of our solar system has obviously been around a long time, having been formed in other solar systems long ago. Energy from a BBE would first be elementary particles, then hydrogen and would have to make passage through more than one star before it could be converted to helium, carbon, oxygen, etc.

 

It just doesn't seem possible for a universe to be only 13.7 billion years old, yet have enough time to complete all the necessary cycles. Nature would need time to create higher elements in larger stars (10 to 20+ billion years), disperse them (? Billion years), cycle them through other sizes of stars (20+ billion years); create organic molecules (? Billion years) and then have them all come back together and form our solar system (4.5 billion years), all in only 13.7 billion years or less. This doesn’t even include all the time that the material was just "sitting alone" in space waiting to be involved in the next star system.  I suspect the very atoms in our bodies are older than 13.7 billion years.

 

This short time span is especially hard to imagine since we live on the edge of our galaxy where material is not particularly abundant. If there are stars in the Milky Way which are 1,000 billion years old, then the beginning of our galaxy must have been long before that. Recently I sat and looked at granite rock here in New Mexico which is said to be about 3.5 billion years old. I can’t believe that the material I saw represents one fourth of everything that has ever existed. The Milky Way has surely been rotating a very long time for its material to have undergone the long process of being converted from pure mass energy with no organization to the state we now see where there are many objects and much gravitational order, including one or more black holes at its center.

 

As we view the heavens, we see where galaxies have collided, even in the Hubble deep field pictures. It is not logical to think there could be so many collisions if everything came from a single point and expanded outward. It makes more sense to think of these collisions as being the result of material being tossed in every direction by BBEs at different places in space and time. We should expect to see things moving in every direction and colliding with each other, but the assumption of a single big bang has clouded most thought as it pertains to cosmological patterns and how to interpret those patterns.

 

As a thought experiment, take the Hubble telescope and instantly transport yourself to the farthest galaxy that we can see.  Now look further away in the same direction.  What would you see?  You would see more stars and more galaxies that are just too far away for us to see from Earth, at least with the Hubble. In addition, what if you turned the telescope around and looked back towards Earth.  I imagine you would be able to see the Milky Way, but what about the other 13.7 billion light years of material on past the Earth?  Could you see it?  Probably not, even though, in this thought experiment, you know that the material exists because you could see it from Earth before you started the journey. The point is that there is some limit to what we can see from Earth.  We can build larger telescopes and see further, but we will never be able to see everything, so we must assume the cosmos is infinite since any limits will always be beyond our reach.

 

My model projects a Cosmos which is infinitely large and infinitely old. Although Universes come and go, the Cosmos appears to go on forever. The question of an open or closed universe has no meaning. The question of dark matter and dark energy also seems unimportant. Both questions arose from assuming a single big bang, a single expanding universe and an infinite speed of gravity. These concepts (and their underlying assumptions) were developed to try to explain the motions we see, as viewed from their single expanding universe model.  If we assume an infinite cosmos model, with objects moving in every direction, there is no need for dark matter or dark energy.  All matter that is unseen resides in the black holes at the center of each galaxy and galaxy cluster.

 

The open/closed universe question arose because of our intense desire as human beings to "want" the "universe" to continue forever or to be a "closed" universe. No one wants to think that we live in an "open" universe that would apparently eventually come to an end. It seems to me that humanity has an inherent desire to see "things" continue forever. My model of an infinite cosmos embraces that desire, as supported by the evidence we see around us.

 

The assumption that the cosmic background radiation is purely the remains of a single big bang should also be questioned.  In an infinite cosmos, one is going to have about the same amount of background radiation in all directions, since every direction continues forever.  High energy cosmic events could be the result of two or more black holes colliding. Next to BBEs, these should be the most energetic events in the cosmos, especially if the colliding black holes have different spins.

 

Evidence now indicates that the Milky Way Galaxy has at least one million black holes and is made of material that comes from numerous other galaxies that have been drawn in through time.  Thus collisions of black holes could easily be happening in our neighborhood, which would mean the large energy cosmic rays detected on Earth could be “new” events and that they didn’t come from the “beginning of time.” 

 

What is important is to view the Cosmos with an open mind so that we can accurately interpret what we see. After all, any model of science is merely a tool which we use to help us better understand the world around us. Viewing the cosmos as infinite is more beneficial to humanity and science than viewing the cosmos as finite.

 

We have direct evidence that the Milky Way Galaxy alone is at least several hundred billion years old, probably several trillion. For all practical purposes, we can assume the Cosmos goes on forever since no event can stop the accumulation of matter into black holes. Hawking's Radiation may account for some material escaping, but could never account for the mass and gravity of entire galaxies, especially since black holes only get hungrier as they get older and larger. No event can stop those same black holes from eventually becoming so large that they convert their energy as a BBE back into individual masses which have no relationship to each other. In essence, God recycles.

 

Chapter Four

Gravionics and Physics

 

New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not common. John Locke

No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man. - Heraclitus

 

Although pregravionic science assumes that all scientific events are reproducible, that assumption is probably not true.  Under gravionics, each and every particle is unique, since its history of gravionic connections is unique.  This means that each and every physical process that occurs is also unique, although it is obvious that similar events produce similar results.  But if science is to include spirituality, then many real events occur that are not reproducible since the set of circumstances surrounding human interactions is very complex and relies on certain gravitational connections that may only occur a single time.

 

As an example, take any meeting between two people.  Assume they discuss the weather and then walk on their own ways.  All would have to agree that this was a real event, but could it ever be reproduced?  I would suggest the answer is no, since the two could try to reproduce the exact meeting with the exact conversation but it would never be exactly the same.   The air molecules transferring the speech would be different.  The exact tone and language would be different.  The time of the event would be different and almost everything that made the event real would be different when the two tried to recreate the same moment.  Any writer knows that when the computer “eats” your work, you can never recreate the exact same set of words the second time around.

 

Many other events that are real are even less reproducible.  Take the instance of a man driving down the street and looking at a pretty woman walking away from him.  Many times the woman “feels” the gaze and turns to see who is looking at her, although under pregravionic science, this isn’t a real event, only a coincidence.  My experiences have shown that this does happen and in the chapter on spirituality, I will show how the connections of gravity can transport energy to make this a real physical event. 

 

But trying to design an experiment where this happens every time is virtually impossible, since one can’t reproduce the exact same situation over and over.  Some people are more aware than others and the very thoughts of the individuals can affect the outcome of the experiment. The gravionic connections between the two will also vary at different points in space and time.  So because an event is not reproducible doesn’t mean that it isn’t real, only that we are not yet aware of everything that might make up the variables of the experiment.  Since mankind is generally not yet aware of the connections of gravity, how can he be fully aware of the parameters of any experiment involving these connections?

 

Newton thought that light must travel through some substance and it later was called the ether.  Einstein wasn’t sure about the situation and there has been much discussion over this issue.  Under gravionics, the connections of gravity, which form all space that we can know, would be the ether.  Light does not travel through “empty” space, but rather it travels through the connections of gravity that make up all space that we can know.

 

Under pregravionic science, the electromotive force is considered one of the four “forces” of nature.  The electromotive force would include light and all kinds of radiation.  Under gravionics, this is not a separate force, but merely the movement of energy between two masses through a gravion (space).  The gravion creates the space necessary to transport the radiation and thus the connections of gravity would correspond to the proposed ether.

 

The electromotive “force” can not be a force of nature since it is merely the movement of energy from one physical system to another through the gravitational system, in an effort to equalize the energies of the two systems.  Pregravionic science likes to isolate a system, make their pretty equations, and then assume that whatever they are studying can exist on its own, without regard to the rest of the cosmos.  Superstring mathematicians make their strings appear out of nowhere, not realizing they must arise from the mass.  Cosmologists have everything coming from nothing not realizing this is not even a scientific model, but some form of religion which involves faith. 

 

The weak force is another example of something that can’t exist by itself.   The role of the weak force is to change elementary particles (now called quarks) from one (flavor) to another.  It was in certain radioactive decays that the existence of the weak force was first revealed. The weak interaction is the only known process in which a quark can change to another quark, or a lepton to another lepton - the so-called "flavor changes" of nature.

 

If we actually examine any real physical system, we see that there are a number of gravionic connections that exist between the masses that make up the real physical system.  These connections and masses are in constant motion (such as orbiting each other) and from time to time energies (the weak force) and masses (neutrinos for one) escape the system when the energies of the system cause one of more bonds to change.  If all the energies concentrate at one point in a physical system, then the system may have a release of energy or the release of individual masses, such as occurs in the sun, when neutrinos are ejected.  The neutrinos can escape the tremendous gravitational connection of the sun, because they are no longer connected gravitationally to the sun and each then defines its own universe, since it isn’t connected to our own universe by a gravion, or connection of gravity.

 

There are two kinds of superstrings, straight and looping, or self and advertising as I have labeled the corresponding gravions. All of mathematics is supposed to be a model or a representation of reality. The problem with current superstring mathematics is that it doesn't represent reality.  The superstring mathematicians just make their gravions “appear” in space.  They don’t realize these must come from somewhere in nature.  I think the evidence indicates that the straight superstring (which is represented by the strong force) causes the creation of space that extends outward from the mass (traditional gravity).  Current superstrings are looping structures that connect back on themselves and just “float in space,” when they should be arising from the mass at the speed of gravity.  When superstring mathematicians need a mass, for some reason, they substitute multiple dimensions.  Under gravionics, there are only three dimensions and time is not one of them.  Time is the changing of the connections of gravity.

 

Many people have wondered about the particle and wave nature of all real “things.”  The reason that all real physical systems have both natures, of course, is because of the first principle; that the minimum condition for existence for all real systems is identity and relationship.  That means that each real “thing” must have both a mass and gravity component.  These characteristics can not be separated and show themselves as we look at nature.

 

Also, as we look at the model of the first gravions, we see that the gravitational structure is not symmetric in three dimensions.  The advertising gravion sticks out in only one dimension.  This means that any connection made by this particle will be asymmetric and the result is particles that are lopsided.  Lopsided particles will then tend to attach to other particles and make larger lopsided particles, with the gravitational connections “sticking out” farther on one side than on the other.  This makes these particles eventually behave in many situations like a wave.  One example is when particles of sand, irritated by dune buggies continually driving over them, make very pretty “waves” of sand in the road.

 

The lopsided nature of particles also explains why real physical systems rotate around a center.  If a lopsided particle attaches to another lopsided particle through gravionic connections, the process of connecting causes this structure to start to spin.  This spinning also helps the particles “define” their oneness.

 

One of the problems with pregravionic science is that scientist tend to view themselves as the elite.  When they have nice big equation, they know that lay people can’t understand them, so they think themselves superior to the lowly masses.  Gravionics has been developed so that nature can be taught to a child entering the first grade.  The child can be taught that they are gravitational beings, born into a universe that is progressing towards order and that they should look to find how they can increase that order from the highest viewpoint that they can muster.  They should be taught that every interaction they have with other humans is a gravitational event and that they should learn the laws of spiritual energy exchanges so that they can be moral beings.  Then they should be told that they should look at nature and see how they can apply these rules to see if they have insights into the system that arise from their own unique viewpoint.

 

Why doesn’t E=gmc2 have dimensional units of energy?  Mankind has developed a number of mathematical models in his desire to understand the world around himself. Since during this time of development, there has been no unified model by which to construct the sub-models, many aspects of physical systems research has gone on in abstract and as separate issues. In other words, we have been looking at all the pieces and trying to describe each little piece.

 

The job of the philosopher is to have the overview and to look at all things at once. It is not surprising that once an overview is established, there will have to be some tweaking of the sub-models that fall under the overview model. Through time, as mathematics and physics has advanced; we have come to use different letters to represent different parts of physical systems. Stephen Hawking uses a big “E” and a little “m” and a little “c” when he writes Einstein’s equation E=mc2.

 

Unfortunately, since gravity has never been in the equation, the letter g has come to mean different things depending on if it is a big or little g (a big G representing the gravity of the Earth). I have just decided to basically ignore the issue, until mainstream science accepts the gravionic model and then we can have a conference and decide what units are placed with each symbol.

 

Scientist have been looking at the energy of gravity within the various bonds of nature.  They just haven't called these gravitational connections by the correct name. Remember that mathematics is just a model of reality and not the reality itself. In the development of the gravionic model, I have tried to just be open and honest and understand nature from nature's own viewpoint.

 

This is one reason a unified view of nature has been so hard to come by.  We have the mass people looking at their "elephant" and saying it has a small tail.  We have the gravity people looking at their "elephant" and saying it has a trunk and big ears.  All I am trying to do is shine a gravionic flashlight on the darn elephant so that everyone can see what "he" looks like when viewed in its entirety.  One can not look at mass alone and understand the cosmos.   One can not look at gravity alone and understand the cosmos.  One can not look at energy alone and understand the cosmos.  One must look at all three elements of any physical system ... at the same time...  if one is to understand the whole.

 

Many superstring mathematicians define the simple strings as a straight line.  My first principle states that the minimum condition for existence in any universe is identity and relationship. Thus, to be real, any physical system must meet the minimum requirements of storing part of its energy in mass and part of its energy in its gravions. To say that a line can form in space and that it has no end points is to talk of some imaginary line. In nature, every line (connection of gravity) must go between two points or masses. If you look at the image of the paired gravions, you will see that the self (or straight-line gravion) must terminate in two points. And likewise, the advertising (or looping) gravion must terminate in two points. Mankind can imagine straight lines in "space" with no connecting points, but nature must follow the first principle. Thus, in nature, every gravion ends at two masses.

 

Also, gravity is not analog, like some kind of giant "sheet," but rather it is digital and is composed of individual connections of gravity called gravions. Every gravion is finite in length. In reality, all these bonds actually bend, when other forces are applied, so it is also wrong to assume that straight gravions remain straight under all situations.  I have just named them straight (or self) gravions to distinguish them from the second type of gravion which is always looping.  These looping structures can be seen in nature when one puts iron filings around a bar magnet, or when one looks at the “space” around any large mass, such as the sun.  This is the true shape of space.

 

There are many gravions (superstrings) that create all of the space that we can know. Even though each connection is finite and every physical system is finite, there are an infinite number of connections. If one just keeps going from mass to mass and following the connections, they go on forever. So in conclusion, there is no beginning or end to space.

 

Although I almost hate to mention it, astrology gains some credibility under gravionics.  This doesn’t mean that I believe every interpretation about reality that any astrologer might suggest.  But what gravionics clearly shows is that we are connected to the rest of the cosmos.

 

If one can see, for instance, the planet Mars, then one has a gravitational connection to Mars at that point in space and time.  The light from the sun has traveled through gravions to arrive at Mars and then is reflected from the surface of Mars by the molecules that make up its surface.  Through additional gravions, this light then makes its way through our atmosphere and eventually connects with our eyes.  The energy of that light was on Mars only minutes before and now it is entering the eye of the beholder.  We are connected to anything that we can see and many things that we can’t see.  How these connections might affect a human life have yet to be determined, but we are connected.

 

Entropy is the measure of disorder of the cosmos.  Current science thinks that entropy is increasing, or that disorder is increasing.  As I’ve said earlier, this is because science has realized that the energy in the mass is decreasing with each real physical process or reaction.  But since this energy is moving from the mass and into the gravitational system by making additional gravionic bonds, entropy is actually decreasing.  Each universe, if viewed from the highest perspective, is actually moving towards order, not away from order.

 

In electronics, a condition occurs when conductors are cooled to near absolute zero.  Electrons pass through the wire without resistance. This is called superconducting.  Why does this happen?

 

The answer lies in the connections of gravions. Resistance, in any electronic circuit occurs when the electrons use part of their energy to make gravitational bonds with the molecules of the metal conductors.  If no connections are made, then there is no resistance in the circuit.

 

When electrons are cooled, the energy is reduced in the system.  If an electron looks like the image of the first gravions, then as the energy is removed from the system, the advertising gravion would begin to shrink.  After it shrinks to a certain limit, it is no longer able to make connections of gravity with the metal molecules and the superconducting state is entered.

 

If there are no connections of gravity with the metal, why don’t the electrons leave the metal?  I would propose that the electron is captured within the space created by the metal molecules, even if it doesn’t have a connection.  As we look at superconducting situations, we see that the electrons tend to move to the outer edge of the “wire” and move along the outer surface.  Just as we see the looping structure of the magnet with iron filings, the wire itself must form these looping structures outside of its mass.  My guess is that the electrons move through this looping space, without connecting to the metal and without leaving the space created by the molecules of the conductor.  Remember that the electrons “know” of the potential difference of the circuit by the gravitational connections within the wire, so they must stay within its influence.

 

A similar feature is probably also working in the case of supercooled helium.  In experiments, supercooled helium moves without resistance and friction ceases.  It moves through narrow cracks and capillaries without loss of momentum. Also, objects move through the fluid without encountering resistance. (Since electrons also move through it without resistance, supercooled fluids are also superconductors.) Thus, gravitationally, a superconducting superfluid is not "there" for the objects or electrons that move through it, since no connections of gravity are made between the two. 

 

The reason is probably similar to the electron example.  The advertising gravions that extend outside the helium molecule are so reduced by the reduction in energy, that they don’t have the energy to connect to their environment.  Since each still has its own space, it can “push” the next molecule as they travel, but the molecules don’t have the energy to make gravitational connections with their environment.

 

And finally, I would like to introduce the Moore Certainty Principle to counteract the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  Heisenberg proposed that that the position and velocity of atomic physical entities cannot be established simultaneously.  But I’m certain that nature knows the position and velocity of all real physical systems.  She accomplishes this feat by the connections of gravity which connect and disconnect at the speed of gravity.  This is much faster than the speed of light, but less than simultaneously.  If mankind will just become aware of these connections, he too should be able to determine the position of any real physical system, at any one time (time being the changing of the connections of gravity).   

Chapter Five

Gravionics and Spirituality

 

All truly wise thoughts have been thought already thousands of times; but to make them truly ours, we must think them over again honestly, till they take root in our personal experience. - Goethe

In view of the fact that God limited the intelligence of man, it seems unfair that he did not also limit his stupidity. - Dean Acheson

Gravity cannot be held responsible for people falling in love. - Albert Einstein

 

One of the most important aspects of the gravionic model of physical systems is that it unites Science and Spirituality, since a human being is still a physical system, even though it has more capabilities than a non-living physical system.  Everyone that has talked about a unified model of science has talked about uniting quantum mechanics and relativity, yet they always seem to forget the energies of the human spirit.  Even Einstein’s quote above assumes that gravity is not involved in love, yet the gravionic model defines love by the connections of gravity. All of my life, I have seen the spirit energies as real, yet no scientist ever seems interested in including the spirit energies in their equations.

 

All physical systems in the cosmos interact in a two part sequence.  First the connections of gravity are made and then energies flow through these connections.  Human beings are no different, except that we seem mostly unaware of the connections of gravity that we share and the energies that flow between us. And additionally, our energies are more complex and varied than when two rocks pass in the night.

 

The evidence indicates that the human mind is a gravitational structure.  The purpose of our brain is to generate gravitational models which we use to represent the world around us.  As an example, consider the human eye.  Pregravionic science has assumed the eye is a passive device that merely receives light.  But under the gravionic model, the eye, when it is opened, must send out gravionic connections to the outside world (at the speed of gravity).  Then the light energies bouncing off the real objects around us travel through these connections to the eye.  Next they are converted to chemical and electrical messages that are transferred to the back of the brain where an image is created.

 

We must understand that this model created by the mind is merely a representation of the reality outside itself. Although it appears to us we are seeing the actual reality, what we are actually seeing is a model created within our brain of that reality.  I believe this model is created within the brain by using the connections of gravity (gravions).  The information passes from the object, through the connections of gravity as light energy, down the optic nerve as chemical and electrical impulses, and then into the brain itself where the image resides.

 

There must be a “circuit” within the brain to both generate the model and then another “circuit” to view this model.  When we dream, use our imagination, or see with the mind’s eye, we “see” a model that is probably generated by another “circuit.”   The varied methods of creating this model give us different abilities to “see” nature.

 

Since these structures are gravitational, they extend outward from our mass, just as all gravitational structures extend outside the mass that creates them.  Once one understands this concept, it is easier to see how “paranormal” events can happen.  

 

Have you ever looked at someone walking away from you and had them turn around, apparently aware that you were looking at them?  Have you ever “felt” someone looking at you?  If so, you have been aware of the energies that are exchanged by the act of seeing.  The eye is an active unit, not a passive unit.  That is how one person can feel the sight of another.  Pregravionic science refuses to recognize this as real, yet I have seen it occur too often to be a coincidence.  The gravionic model gives us an easy way to understand this problem and make sense of a real event that has previously been classified as paranormal.  Under gravionics, this event is a normal event and there are no paranormal events, since all real events need not be reproducible.

 

Our emotions are also gravitational structures and depending on the strength of these emotions, they also extend outside our mass.  Have you ever felt someone else’s emotions?  The reason some can do this is because the emotions extend outside our bodies (as part of our gravitational system) and some people’s emotion sensors are sensitive enough to detect the emotions of others.  Different people have different capabilities and some people are just more aware of this phenomenon than are others.  But whether you are aware or not, these events are real and the energies of emotion and thought can be transferred without words between aware individuals.  Dogs, as a pack animal, seem to be very aware of our emotions and often are more in touch with human emotions than the human being himself.

 

Our thoughts and memories are also gravitational structures and reside within our brain.  Thoughts occur when the brain grabs some raw gravions and arranges them by passing them through our gravitational processors.  As these thoughts occur, some or most are then stored as physical gravitational constructions within our brain.  When we want to revisit these thoughts, they are pulled back into our processing units and we “see” them over again. 

 

Insanity therefore results when a model is created that is not close enough to reality for the organism to survive on its own.  A closely related phenomenon that I have observed is the desire for all organisms to make the simplest model possible.  We see this in many species and we see it in humans.  If you have ever watched a spider, such as a tarantula, one will see that it has a very simple model of reality in its brain and genes.  I’ve stood and watched one walk between my feet, never even being aware that I’m there.  A spider’s world is very small and only extends a few inches around themselves.  But this model has worked for eons, so the spider has no desire to develop a more complex model. 

 

Many human beings seem to follow the same path.  They develop a simple model of re