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 reality and never part from it unless circumstances cause them to have to look for a better model.  One reason our young take so long to develop is because they need lots of time to develop more complex models of reality than any other species.  The Mozart effect has been said to aid development of youth, partly because it presents our young with a more complex view of music, which then leads them to develop a more complex view of life.  Life is complex and a complex model of that reality is required if our species is to survive and continue to grow.

 

As I have earlier described, when one physical system moves past another, gravitational connections are made.  We could use the example of two asteroids passing each other in space.  At first, they are far away from each other and have no connections of gravity and thus no relationship.  Then, as their momentums and energies move them through the cosmos, they come near enough to each other that at some point, they make connections of gravity.  These connections are much like rubber bands in that the two objects now have gravionic connections which act to pull the two objects toward each other.

 

There are three things that can now happen.  As they come close to each other, the energies of their gravionic connections is less than the energies of their movement and the two objects merely pass each other and each goes on its own way.  However, since they have made gravionic connections with each other, each will influence the path of the other and both will have a new path based on their interaction. Once they travel far enough from each other, all the connections of gravity are eventually broken and the two no longer have a relationship with each other.

 

The second thing that can happen, although it is highly unlikely when only two objects are involved, is that they can connect in such a way, that the two objects end up with one in orbit about the other.  If they are near the same size, then they will essentially orbit each other.  This relationship is generally unstable over time and either the energy will not be enough to keep them together and the orbits will gradually increase until they eventually separate or the gravionic connections are great enough that the orbit will decline and the two will eventually merge.  The moon has been separating from the Earth for billions of years and will eventually leave the Earth, providing an example of the first condition. 

 

The last thing that could happen is the attraction between the two is so great that the two overcome their momentum energies and the two will come together.  If they are near the same size, one or the other might be destroyed by the energy of the collision and a number of smaller particles would be sent their own way.  But if one object is larger than the other, the two may come together and form a new object that is the sum of the two objects.  In this case, the advertising gravions become self gravions when the two collide.

 

Human beings react in much the same way, except the energy of our spirit, our minds, and our emotions are greater than “dead” asteroids.  Human beings may also connect in a way similar to asteroids, but we have the ability to retain connections no matter how far we eventually move away from each.  This is unlike “dead” objects which can totally break any and all gravionic connections that formed during their initial interaction.

 

When human beings come near each other, we too make gravitational connections.  Since we have energy in our spirit, we can actually control the connections that occur to some degree, if we are aware of the process.  All human relationships are first and foremost gravitational events.  As we connect with each, energies are exchanged and the understanding and control of these energies mark the difference between spiritual interactions and interactions that are not spiritual.  When two people see each other across the room and have a quick attraction to each other, it has been called chemistry.  I would call it gravity.

 

Once we realize that these connections are occurring, we can begin controlling these in the proper manner.  Spirituality is thus defined as the proper (loving) exchanges of energy between sentient beings.  So what are the rules that we must follow?

 

First we each must, to the best of our abilities, increase our own spirit energies so that we can support our own lives and the human interactions that will occur in our lives.  Each of us has different energies and different capabilities, but in general, each person should be responsible for themselves.  Each of us has different ways to control and increase this energy, including eating properly, exercising enough to keep strong and fight off disease, and some form of meditation or uplifting of our own spirit so that we have energy to give to others that might need it.

 

In my own life, I like to walk in the forest.  The forest contains energy from all the life that exists and I can draw energy from this life.  Plus the mere act of walking up a mountain is a form of exercise that helps increase the energy of your entire being.  I also like to stop from time to time and sometimes even lie down in the grass and just be one with all that is around me.  Too many humans rush about in their lives and they never take time to just be still.  I like to close my eyes and listen to the world and feel the connections of gravity that bind us to all that exists.  Listening to water running down the mountain is very soothing and helps me connect and be one with my world.  So many people feel unconnected in their lives, yet if they would just understand gravionics, they would know that they have almost an infinite number of connections.  They are just not aware of these connections and feel alone.

 

Second, we should be prepared to give energy to others in the course of our lives.  Since each of us have different capabilities, some of us will always need additional energy and some of us will always have extra energy to give.  The human species will live or die by our combined actions, so we each must be willing to share energies with those in need.  This allows each individual of our species to make as big a contribution to the whole as is possible.  

 

This ebb and flow of energy in our spirit occurs as we meet other individuals and move through life, facing the many situations that make up an individuals life.  Sometimes we come into contact with others that are sick or their bodies are not operating properly.  Those that have extra energy are then in a position to give energy to those that need it. To give energy to another, one must have extra energy to give, make one or more connections of gravity with that person, and “push” energy through these connections.  For this process to work, both parties need to be aware of the process and work together to complete the exchange of energy.

 

We are a communal creature and we share these energies of the human spirit with the others of our species that inhabit our common planet.  None of us can exist alone, so from time to time we do need help from others. 

 

The third rule is that we should never take energies from others, unless they are giving them knowingly and willingly. This is the rule that is most abused by those that are not aware of these energies and their exchanges.  Many people are like energy leeches, stealing energy from all those around them.  How do they do this?  One way is by people yelling at each other or treating each other without respect.  Another is by not keeping their word to each other.  Withholding food or water or education also extracts energy.  Many bosses like to take energy from their employees by “jumping” on them as it “feels” good to receive another’s energy.  But to those whose energy has been “taken” it doesn’t feel good because they feel this loss of energy.  These are prime examples of a human interaction that is not spiritual.

 

All human interactions are gravitational events, where connections of gravity are made and broken and energies are exchanged.  When we come into contact with others, we make connections of gravity.  But unlike inanimate objects, human beings have the ability to maintain our connections of gravity at great distances, even when we part company.  Twins are known for being in close contact with their twin and often are so connected they have similar thoughts at the same time.  Many twins, upon the death of the sibling, immediately “know” that the other is dead, because the connections of gravity are broken and they feel the loss of energy associated with the broken connections of gravity.  Again, this is not a paranormal event, but very normal.  Pregravionic science has just not been aware and thus has classified it as outside of science.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

We must come to realize that every word we speak to another also involves connections of gravity.  We are first connected by the sound waves that pass through the air.  Each of the molecules in the air passes the information of our voices and connects us gravitationally to one another.  When we make promises, we are establishing connections of gravity in each mind (as new thoughts) and between minds (as our agreement).  When we break our word, we break all the connections of gravity that bind us together as individuals and as a species.  This decreases the overall order and decrease the chance for survival of our species. 

 

As loving sentient beings, we should strive to create as much order as possible from the highest perspective we can muster.  When we make connections of gravity, we increase the order of the cosmos.  When we break these connections, we decrease the order of the cosmos.  All good can be related to increasing order while all bad can be related to decreasing order.  Of course, each viewpoint of order is different as every human being has a greater or lesser perspective of that order and human beings tend to view everything from their own viewpoint rather than the overall viewpoint of humanity. 

 

One should always look for a viewpoint that is greater than your own individual viewpoint.  It is more important to view events from the viewpoint of the species rather than the viewpoint of the individual.  As an example, we know that each of us will eventually die as an individual, but what we don’t know is if our species will survive.  We should try to gain that superior viewpoint and make our actions such that we insure the survival or our species rather than always working for just our own survival.

 

Thus love is defined as the actions of a sentient being whereby they give more energy than they take and they make more connections of gravity than they break.

 

When I was little, my mother told me that I was a Christian and that Christian’s read their Bible every night and prayed for those things they wanted and for those things that were important.  I didn’t know what was important and my life has been a search for that definition.  So each night, as I lay in my bed waiting for sleep to overcome me, I would strive to figure out what was important.  To accomplish this, I would picture my body rising up from my bed.  I would pass through the ceiling and continue rising until I could see the Earth below me.  Then I would rise further until I could see the sun and solar system below me.  Then I would rise further until I could see the Milky Way galaxy below me.  At this point, I felt that I had the proper perspective to decide what was important. 

 

Most people are so consumed with their lives that they have little time to think from a higher perspective.  I would suggest that all humans spend some time in their life looking back down on the Milky Way to see what might be important from that perspective.  If we are to survive as a species, we each must learn to look at life from a higher perspective than our own small viewpoints. We also must use our best and smartest people working together to solve the real problems that face our species.

 

Under gravionics, each universe is progressing towards order.  When a particle comes into existence, there is no order.  When particles enter a black hole, there is total order, as no more connections of gravity can be made.  Suns are constantly making more ordered products out of less ordered products.  Life itself is always increasing order.  Everything we call “good” in life is always associated with increases in order and those things we call “bad” are always indicated by decreases in order.  If one person kills another, the order of the person killed is decreased.  But it extends much further than that because every connection of gravity that dead person shared with others in his life is also broken.  Thus there are untold broken connections of gravions that occur upon the death of any human.

 

Since life is always increasing order, the purpose of life is to increase order.  The purpose of sentient life is to further increase order and the purpose of your life is to increase order from the highest perspective that you can muster.  Each time we lie to one another, we break the very order of our human species.  If everyone lied to everyone else, our species could not continue to live.  It is only by keeping our words to each other can order increase.  This is the only hope we have that our species can continue to survive.

 

Sooner or later, human beings must learn to solve all their problems by establish connections of gravity between us and then maintaining those connections.  How can we call ourselves civilized if we continue to kill each other?  How can we call ourselves civilized if any of our species dies from hunger?  How can we call ourselves civilized if every human being doesn’t have a chance to be the most he can be by obtaining the proper education?

 

We must learn to make agreements between each other and then keep those agreements.  When we make war, we merely destroy connections of gravity and all humanity suffers.  We must learn to stop breaking our words and to live our lives communally on this planet, since eventually we will all live and die based on how well we learn to get along and solve the real problems that face us all.

 

If humanity is wiped out by a giant asteroid, or a small virus, or some other condition that we as yet have no awareness, then it won’t matter whether we are male or female, black or white, democrat or republican, Jew, Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist.  All our supposed differences will be meaningless and we will all perish together.  The real problems that threaten our survival as a species must be solved by facing these problems as a species and using our best efforts to arrive at the proper solution.  The solution should benefit all.

 

If we examine one of the closest relationships on the planet, the bond between man and wife, we see that there is much to learn from elementary particles.  A neutrino is apparently a single particle with no connection of gravity.  It thus, in some way, exists outside our universe, since it in effect defines its own universe and has no gravionic connections with our universe.  As such, it is worthless.  To be useful, it must collide with another mass, where it could make a connection of gravity and join our universe.

 

But if we examine an electron, we apparently are viewing a mass that is made up of at least two parts.  (See the image of the first gravions for a possible example.)  These two are connected by a gravion that allows them to orbit about each other (a self gravion).  The process of making this bond apparently also allows them to have a connection of gravity (an advertising gravion) that extends outside the mass and allows the electron to work with other particles in our universe and so it becomes a very useful particle.  The sum of the parts is greater than either of the pieces that make up the whole.

 

A marriage between two humans should be similar.  The two people should come together and make connections of gravity between them.  These would be self gravions and would actually consist of an untold number of connections that bind the two together to make them a single physical system.  This allows them to orbit each other, each keeping a distance from the other, but always staying connected.  This union creates two “particles” that should have more capabilities than either of the parts.  The two together can do more than either can do on its own.  The two have larger advertising gravions that can now reach out to others, including their children, to be more useful than either can be by himself.

 

One of the problems with marriage has to do with the exchanges of energy between the two.  When the relationship is new, both parties feel the energy of the relationship, which is transferred via the gravitational system.  Both like this feeling of energy and both give to each other.  But as the relationship matures, since neither is fully aware of the energy exchanges, they each try to take energy from the other and the relationship starts to deteriorate.  Over time a full fledged battle for energy can take place.  This is not spiritual and only serves to eventually destroy the relationship.

 

The proper exchange of energy would have each partner become aware of their gravitational connections and follow the spiritual rules that I have outlined previously.  Then, when one party needs energy, the other should be quick to give energy, so that the relationship continues and strengthens through time.  This would work both ways as each partner will have days with excess energy and days when they need energy.  If two people really love each other, then they will follow these rules and give energy at the appropriate time so the relationship continues to grow and prosper.

 

The next concept to discuss is the difference between religion and spirituality.  A religion, it seems to me, is a method of obtaining spirituality, yet the gravionic model clearly shows that one only needs to follow a simple set of rules to be spiritual.

 

Many people follow a religion and it gives them a set of things to do to achieve a connection with God.  Yet one need not sing any particular song, recite any particular verse, and follow any particular rites or procedures to be spiritual and make real connections of gravity with God.  One must only follow the rules I have set forth, since the essence of spirituality is how we treat each other, not what rituals we follow.

 

I was raised as a Christian and so have listened to the words of Christ to try to be spiritual in my life.  Jesus said to love each other and I don’t think he ever intended for there to be hundreds of churches in his name, since we don’t need a church to follow Jesus’ commandment to love one another and to love God.  Loving God just means that we should have a higher perspective than ourselves and that we should look to this greater perspective in making our decisions.  I’ve seen so many churches that don’t seem to have a clew about the message of Jesus and the church and the Bible are worshipped over the love that Jesus taught.

 

As an example, Jesus told us that when we pray, we should not pray in public, but should go into our closet and make our prayers to God.  What does it mean to pray a real prayer?  Under gravionics, for any event to be real, there must be a connection of gravity between two masses and then an exchange of energy.  If we pray to God, then we must connect with Him and receive energy.  In my life, I can’t separate the concept of God from the concept of nature.  So I connect with nature and receive energy when I need it.

 

If you are praying for the health or well-being of another person, then you should make a real connection of gravity with that person and give them energy to help heal whatever problem they might have.  One doesn’t have to say a word or chant a chant or sing a song to have an effective prayer.  One only needs to make a connection of gravity (or strengthen existing connections) with that person and give them energy, for the event to be real. 

 

If you don’t make a connection of gravity and give energy, then one is just fooling oneself that the prayer is real.  At this point in my life, I don’t trust anyone that prays out loud in public because that goes against what Jesus taught and what I now know to be real.  This is especially true if the person prays on TV.  How can this be real?  It seems to me that most TV preachers are merely lining their pockets with alms from the poor to make themselves richer.  But Jesus said to build up your treasures in heaven rather than on Earth.  Real treasures involve loving those around you and being spiritual in all your interactions with other human beings.

 

I believe that Jesus understood gravionics and this is represented by one of the stories about him.  Jesus was moving through a crowd and a woman in need touched his robe.  Jesus stopped and said that energy had flowed from him (E=gmc2) and asked who had done the deed.  This event clearly shows that a connection of gravity had been made and that energies were exchanged, which describes a real event under gravionics.

 

Gravionics is not just for Christians, but for everyone.  I use the example of Christ because that best fits my background and the lessons I have learned in my life.  But I think the concepts that I have proposed are the basis for all religions and the basis for all belief in God. And more importantly, people can be spiritual and not believe in God at all.   

 

Although Jesus said to go into your closet and pray alone, there is no doubt that a corporeal spirit emerges when groups of people pray together.  I think that many times religions use this spirit energy for their own purposes, but it doesn’t have to be that way.  Many times I’ve felt the spirit energy increase in a congregation, especially when they sing and dance together.  There is something about music that helps this energy form and transfer.  Gravitationally, the people are making connections of gravity between themselves, exchanging energy, and then feeling the communal energy we call the spirit of God. 

 

My own mother has gone through two bouts with cancer.  In the first, she had an operation and then took chemotherapy to keep the cancer at bay.  But a number of years later, another cancer appeared and her life was once again in danger.  My mother is a precious being and was the first person I ever knew who just asked the question “What would Jesus do?” when trying to decide the pathways of her life.  She was loved by many people at different churches because she had always been a “giver” and many people knew and respected this service of love. 

 

The night before she was to receive surgery for the second cancer, I and many others prayed for her.  In all my life, I have never felt the spirit energy stronger than on that night.  The energy was so intense that I knew a miracle was in the works.  The next day, the doctors operated on her, and to their surprise, the tumor was gone.  There was nothing there for them to remove, although they had seen it on numerous x-rays.  The doctors then told my mother that she must take chemotherapy and she did take one treatment.  But then she made the decision that she would not take any more and would leave the decision of the time of her death for God to make.  That was about 20 years ago and she is still alive and healthy today.  There is no doubt that many people praying together can be more effective than a single human praying by himself, if the prayer is moral and the connections of gravity are truly made between those involved.

 

Another example that has been brought to my attention is the mass prayers that occur at Mecca when millions of pilgrims make the trip to pray together to God.  I’ve never been there, but those that have tell me the feeling of spirit energy is beyond belief and I think this is true.  When so many people are concentrating together and making connections of gravity between their minds and then focusing that energy towards their God, then an effective prayer is made under the gravionic model.  My only prayer would be that all humans learn the rules of gravionic love and be aware of these energies and the connections of gravity that make them real.  In reality, we don’t have to all be in the same location to make such an effective prayer, we must only work together as a species, become aware of gravity, and coordinate our energies to change the course of future human history.

 

If order is increasing, as I have stated, then in some ways, each universe is progressing towards God.  I have therefore defined God as the progression towards order.  Whether he existed before mankind, his existence is assured by our thoughts and prayers as we become a more ordered species and as we learn to make connections of gravity rather than breaking them.  God also increase as we learn to give energy to each other and to work as a species to solve the problems that face us all.

 

I hope all that practice any religion will examine their actions and their lives and see if you are creating more or less order.  If you are creating more order, then you are advancing the principles of God.  If you and your religion are decreasing order, then you are not doing what God wants you to do.  When one religion makes war with another that is surely the worst of humanity.  When God is “sold” to the poor to make others rich, then that is the worst of humanity. If there is a single God, then we all must be worshiping the same God, each in our own way and from our own viewpoint.

 

Since the rules of gravionics so clearly show what is God-like, gravionics becomes a great tool allowing individuals and churches to better examine themselves and see if they are being spiritual.  I was in a Christian church recently when after the service a young child reached for the left-over communion bread.  The child was hungry and wanted something to eat.  The priest immediately chastised the child and told him the bread had been blessed and therefore couldn’t be eaten.  This is clearly a case where the religion has come in the way of spirituality and love.  If the child ate the bread, it would bring greater order to the child’ being and help him to grow stronger.  I think that Jesus would clearly tell us to use the bread in your service, if you want, but give the bread to the child when the service is over.  When the bread is withheld from the child, the religion itself is being worshipped more than the message of Christ. 

 

So many Christian churches I have seen clearly worship the Bible over the message of Christ.  When one worships anything, including the Bible, more than the love that Christ preached, then order is being decreased and spirituality is taking a back seat to the religion.  That is always wrong.  So my suggestion to all who follow a religion is to use the rules of spirituality to judge your religion to see if you are increasing the order of the cosmos by loving those around you.  This is accomplished by giving more energy than you take and by making more connections of gravity than you break.

 

The next topic I would like to discuss is of the supernatural.  Under the gravionic model, all real things are included.  We have come to use the term supernatural to define those events which science has been unable to explain.  If an event is real, then it is included in the gravionic model.  Supernatural events now have a natural explanation under GMOPS.  Many philosophers and scientists don't like my work because they want to keep metaphysics and science separate.  Under GMOPS, metaphysics are also included.   A new philosophy of space and time should include all real events, processes, and physical systems, since GMOPS looks at the total energy of all real physical systems.

 

Far from removing God from the equation, the gravionic model is the first model of physical systems that is big enough for God.  If you want, think of the g in the unification equation (E=gmc2) as standing for God.  If an event is real, under GMOPS, there must be a connection of gravity and an exchange of energy.  Thus God can be real in gravionic science.  If you don’t believe in God, then just let g stand for gravity.

 

One thing mankind likes to do, is to make names for his models of everything.  I try not to do this since the very name itself somehow limits what the thing can be.   I have defined God as the progression towards order and this makes Him a part of nature.  How can God be "one" with nature without being a part of nature?  Or maybe a better way to look at it is that God is all of nature.  I believe my model includes all religions and how they look at nature and God.  I just place more emphasis on being spiritual rather than on being religious and more emphasis on seeing reality as models rather than as words. 

 

The gravionic model actually resolves the problem of determinism.   It shows that all real events take place in a two stage process.  First the connections of gravity occur, and then the energies flow.  Before the connections of gravity occur, the "world" is indeterminate and free will exists.  Once the connections of gravity have been made, the system is determinate and nature will exchange energies until equilibrium is accomplished. 

 

All of science to this date has studied reactions and physical events after the connections of gravity have been made.  That is why science tends to be so deterministic.  The gravionic model allows, and in fact, cherishes the creative process in man.  The thing I love most in life is the creative process.  The creative process has driven every bit of my work and is a very basic part of the differences that make me who I am.

 

If God is to have a place to work in our lives, then surely the connections of gravity that make up our minds, would be the place that He could use the least energy to change the world the most.  A single human being can change the course of the world, and to do this, it must start with his thoughts.  Thoughts are then put into action and the world is forever changed.  God only need change our thoughts to change the world.

 

Many times in my Christian life I have been told to accept many different things on faith.  The gravionic model shows that the love of Jesus is a real part of the cosmos.  Thus, it, nor nothing else, need be accepted on faith.  Love can be measured and proven true to anyone who understands and studies gravionics.  The statements that one must believe something on faith have to do with a religion, and not being spiritual.  As a Disciple of Christ, I was taught that each person should read the Bible and determine their own beliefs.  I think the evidence shows that Jesus never intended for there to be 100's of Christian religions, some actually killing each other in the name of Christ.  What Jesus taught was to love each other and that just means being spiritual and following the rules I have proposed. 

 

The Bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus and was apparently put together to control people.  All religions, I believe, are in some way just trying to control people and don't necessarily lead to any increase in spirituality.  As I have shown, one must only follow a simple set of rules of energy exchange to love each other and to be spiritual.  If someone wants to go to church, then I have nothing against it.  But one shouldn't think that it will make you spiritual.  You can quote all the scriptures that you want, but you are just following a religion, not spirituality.  Jesus' sole and only message was to love each other.  Every other topic discussed in his name is a distortion of his message. 

 

I believe that the second coming of Christ is when he comes in our hearts and we live the message of love that he taught us.  Thus all of this talk about waiting for the second coming of Christ (or rapture) just means he hasn't yet come into that person’s heart.  All of this is about religion, and there are a million versions of religion, but there is only one love of God.

 

In an infinite cosmos, as I have glimpsed, one doesn't have to have faith to see how things begin and end.  If God is real, then his creation and methods are real and we can know them if we just ask the right questions and let God answer in his own way.  The acceptance of things by faith is a copout and has nothing to do with understanding how nature works.

 

As I read my Bible, it clearly says that Jesus was the word of God (Gospel of John) and not the Bible itself.  Too many people worship the Bible or their religion, instead of worshiping love.

 

Never pray, as I once did, for patience.  This prayer is only answered by continuous situations where one has to be patient.  Once one understands gravionics, it is obvious that not all connections of gravity are possible in the next moment.  Take the example of the asteroid that comes from outside our solar system.  It can have no connections of gravity with our Earth until it comes close enough for the space of the two bodies to touch.  Thus one must be patient if one wants these two bodies to have gravionic connections.  No amount of hope, crying, despair, praying, or any other action can make them connect before their time.  This analogy can be applied to human life and interactions.  Many people want something to happen before the time is right.  Only waiting and patience can provide the time necessary until the point arrives where real connections of gravity can be made.

 

As an example of religion gone wild, I would like to look at the Catholic Church.  I am not against the Catholic people who have treated me in a spiritual manner more often than any other religious group that I have been around.  What I don’t like is the hierarchy of the church, which states that they have the only connection to God and the people of the church must go through the priests to know God’s will.  The gravionic model clearly shows that all can know God by following the simple rules of spiritual energy exchange.  Each person should strive to ask God directly for the direction of their life and not be forced to go through a “chain of command” that separates them from the love of God by the actions of man.

 

Finally, I would like to discuss how gravionics would view the many diseases that affect mankind.  When one eats some “bad” food and gets sick, what is happening?  The bacteria on the food begin growing within one, making its own gravitational space.  This gravitational space is not in concert with your own gravitational space and you feel sick.  All sickness and injury is a disruption in that gravitational space.  Morning sickness which occurs in many pregnant women is just the “feeling” of the gravitational space of the new being which is forming within the mother and creating its own gravitational space.  Cancer is another example where one’s cells have become another “being” and are not working in concert with one’s own cells.

 

Healing occurs when the energy of your spirit overcomes these other energies and restores your body to oneness.  Human beings have the ability to focus their energies on their injuries and sickness to speed the healing process, but most human beings are not aware of this ability.  Prayer is the focusing of energies, from God or others, to resolve whatever problem you are facing.

 

I have a shaman friend who heals people without placing his hands upon the person.  “Modern” science questions this possibility, because he didn’t even touch the person, so how could he change anything?  What seems strange to me is that these same scientists admit the moon raises seawater by as much as twenty feet a day, and the moon never touches the water either.  Of course, under gravionics, in both cases, connections of gravity are made between physical systems and energy is exchanged.  One by the unknowing moon and one by the loving “touch” of a healer.

Chapter Six

Logic and Music

 

Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.   - Leonard Nimoy

Logics will get you from A to B, Imagination will take you everywhere. – Albert Einstein

There is always music amongst the trees in the garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. - M. Aumonier

Words make you think a thought. Music makes you feel a feeling. A song makes you feel a thought. - E.Y. Harburg (Edgar Yipsel) (1898 - 1981)

                           

For some time I have wondered about the connection between music, physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Since as a philosopher I study all aspects of knowledge, the search for wisdom sometimes brings answers that come from strange directions. I have thought that there must be some very basic connection between music and the physics of the cosmos. Many pieces of Bach just seem like they should be played in space (where you couldn't actually hear it outside of your space suit!) and that his music represents something fundamental about the cosmos. For a very long time, I have wondered about the possible connections.

 

Another problem that I have wondered much about is why do scientists claim there are six elementary particles?  Why is there more than one?  How is six more basic than the number two or three or four or five?  It didn't seem to make sense that there would be six basic building blocks of the cosmos, because six just isn't a "special" number.

 

Then, after I understood the gravionic model, I realized that in the unification equation, E=gmc2, there is, in essence, only one mass, only one gravity and only one energy. But as the equation unfolds, we see that there are an almost unlimited number of ratios of energy that can exist between mass and gravity, ranging in C increments throughout the value of C2. Thus everything that we call a particle is merely part of a gravitational system that is always in a state of change (the changing of connections being the very definition of time). Particles are continually exchanging part of their energy to make new connections of gravity. So what we are currently modeling as particles is actually only part of the energy of the real physical system.  In truth, the total energy is distributed between mass and gravity and extends through the range of C2.  There are no separate masses.

 

What I would propose is that there are actually twelve stable ratios of energy that make up the basic "building blocks" of nature.  When mankind first began to understand music, we started with just a few notes.  We didn't come to full musical awareness, until the 12 notes of the current musical scale were used.  I suspect we won't fully understand the physical systems of nature, until mankind also learns to "hear" all its notes.  With just 12 notes, a musician can play any song.  With just 12 basic ratios, nature can make all that we see.  There is only one mass, but it tends to form stable systems at twelve distinct ratios with its gravions. The reason scientist think there are only 6 particles, is because they just haven't yet heard all the notes!   Instead of calling these things quarks and giving them ridiculous names like up and down, we should rise to full awareness as a species and name these stable elementary ratios by their real names: the notes of the musical scale.

 

Music is also very healing to the human spirit and seems to be one way to increase one’s own spirit energy.  Many things in our life take our energy, including our jobs, our spouses, and all the events that seem negative in our life.  Music is the one process that can solve all problems and give back the energy that has been taken from us by the slings and arrows of time.

 

The legend of Kokopellie is an example from which we can all learn.  If you are not familiar with Kokopellie, he is an ancient flute player whose image appears in the rock art of many ancient societies within North and Central America.  He apparently dates back at least 3000 years and is a symbol of the music that has existed within mankind since our very beginning.  He is usually shown playing his flute and is usually bent over because he is so “into” his music.  Various legends make him responsible for bringing rain and fertility and other things necessary to survival.

Even though Kokopellie is a new world figure, I think he symbolizes the music that has been with us from the beginning.  Kokopellie brought his brand of spiritual magic to the people, playing his songs with deep concentration. He seemed aware that the world of the spirit and the world we see around us are the same.  In other words, he understood gravionics. He played for the spiritual well being of all those that heard him and his spirit continues until this very day.    

 

Human beings probably starting making music when they first began banging sticks together. Later they probably began hitting a hollow log with a stick to make a note.  But once it started, it has continued every since and I think it is basic to the health of humanity.  If you have problems in your life that you can’t solve, try music.  Don’t just listen to music.  For music to have its greatest effect, you must become involved in music and play it yourself.  The Bible tells us to make a joyful noise unto your God.  It doesn’t even say that it has to be in tune, only that if be joyful.  Your spirit energy will increase and music may be one of the few “new” energies in the cosmos.  I sometimes wonder if other species in the cosmos have music and how our music would compare with their music.

 

When the Voyager spaceships were launched and their trajectories were known to go beyond our solar system, a golden record was placed on each, so that any species that might find them would know about the Earth and its people.  Greetings from many languages were placed on the record and many pieces of music were also included.  Bach had the most songs of any musician and some people were upset at the time.  They thought that mankind was bragging by putting so much Bach on the record, since most of our music is not as good.  Maybe mankind has reason to brag since Bach was one of us and we can all take credit for the music that mankind has created.  I wonder if any other species has music better than Bach, Beethoven, the Beatles, or Bob Dylan?  Only time will tell.

 

Logic and music also seem very closely associated with each other, as they are very basic to the lives of most humans.  Let us then examine logic and see how it fits in our lives.

 

Part of the problem in the use of logic comes from the way we use our language and what we mean when we say the word truth or the word logic. The word logic means many things and unfortunately, many people just group all logic into a single category, just as they often group all truth in a single category. But there are different kinds of logic with different meanings. George Boole defined the most primitive logic, a long time ago. The entire gravionic model is based around this Boolean logic. Boolean logic is the most precise logic and is what is used in all computer systems ever produced. Boolean logic is precise because it deals only with true or false and allows no "gray" areas.

 

In addition to Boolean logic, there are logical processes known as inductive logic and deductive logic. Although deductive logic is more precise, either can yield the "truth," but each has its problems, because all logic is based on a set of assumptions.  If your logic is perfect, but your assumptions are wrong, then you are probably going to be wrong (although not necessarily so).

 

The word truth also has many meanings for many different people. That is why the gravionic model defines truth as the connections of gravions. The gravionic model proposes that human consciousness is "built" by gravions and that our very thoughts are gravionic models of a reality that exists outside our own being. Thus what may be true within our minds, may not be true outside our minds, since our thoughts are always a model of what we think exists outside ourselves. We may be "true" to our perceptions, and ourselves, but have "false" thoughts about the world. As an example, take an automobile accident as viewed by several different people. Each will have their "true" account of what happened, yet rarely do three or more accounts agree. Therefore, the word truth is used often to confuse and to define a truth from a particular viewpoint.

 

So what did George Boole actually say about logic?  He defined all logic based on true and false. One way to represent logic is through truth tables. Let's look at the simplest truth table of all, the NOT truth table. Since there are only two choices in Boolean logic, true or false, false must always be the same as NOT true. Thus the first truth table evolves as such:

 

A	NotA	NOT truth table
T	F	If A is true then not A is false
F	T	If A is false then not A is true

 

This very concept lies at the heart of all computer systems, as this represents the basic storage unit of the computer, the bit.  But it also lies at the heart of all true human logic and communications.  Most humans are not totally aware of “not” logic, but they have a gut or implied knowledge.  To be a scientist, one must become aware of logic and how it works in our lives and how we use it in science.

 

For instance, in computers, the definition of a bit is the unambiguous answer to a yes/no question. Thus a bit is always true or false, never anything in between. It is either one or it is zero. It either has current flowing through it or not. All computers rely on this simple concept as the basis for their operation.  Although human beings are more complicated, we too can benefit from awareness of this logic.

 

The gravionic model also relies heavily on this same concept. The gravionic model states that the cosmos is digital and that all gravity is made by individual connections that exist between specific masses in the universe in question. A connection of gravity either exists, or it does not. For anything to be real, under the gravionic model, it must involve mass, gravity, and energy. For two physical systems to "know" about each other, they must have a connection of gravity between them. All physical reactions in the cosmos must involve the connections of gravions. Either the connection exists, or it does not. Either an event is real, or it is not. Thus the gravionic model of physical system supports Boolean logic, but not an Euclidean universe.

 

The next logical concept is OR. This word means that we draw a conclusion about the truth of a statement based on two initial conditions. Notice that for the concept of NOT we only thought about that one thing and then we thought about the NOT of the thing. But when we use the concept of OR, we must talk about two things and a consequence. We would build a truth table for the logical concept of OR like this:

 

A	B	C	OR truth table
T	T	T	If A is true or B is true then C is true
T	F	T	“
F	T	T	“
F	F	F	Neither A or B is true so C is False

    

As an example of a logical argument that uses the OR and the NOT function I would offer the following sequence to “prove” that the cosmos is infinite.

 

There are two choices: The cosmos is infinite OR it is finite.  If I can prove that it can't be finite, then logically it must be infinite.  (Logical NOT)  From set theory, for any set to be finite, the set must have a boundary.  Thus to prove a finite cosmos, one must be able to prove there is a boundary.  The cone of knowledge concept from philosophy and physics shows that we can never know all that exists.  Since we can't know all that exists we can never prove the cosmos has a boundary. Since we can't prove a boundary, we can never prove the cosmos is finite. Thus, the cosmos is infinite.

 

Some have argued with my logic, but one can’t argue with the NOT and OR truth table, as defined by Boolean logic.  If you notice, in the last sentence, I used the word AND between NOT and OR.  The next truth table is the AND truth table. In this situation, both parts must be true for the result to be true.

 

A	B	C	AND truth table
T	T	T	IF  A is True AND B is True then C is True
T	F	F	Only A is True so C is False
F	T	F	Only B is True so C is False
F	F	F	Both A and B are False so C is False

 

From these three concepts springs every gate in every computer ever made.  But as you can see from our discussion, these concepts are basic to all human thought and are critical to all scientific thought.  The logic can be made more complex and more terms can be defined, such as NOT OR and NOT AND, and so on down a long road of ever more complex logical constructs, but all Boolean logic can be defined by these three simple concepts and how they relate to the truth. You must remember that all human thought is abstract and that many people have little concept of true Boolean logic, although everyone seems to know the meaning of the words "not," "and," and "or."

 

Many people in science don’t seem to understand logic.  For instance, in the meteoritic community (those that study meteorites) the logic for finding new meteorites is based around the following “logic.”  All cats I’ve seen have black tails; therefore all cats have black tails.  Even a first year logic student should be able to see the fallacy of this “logical” argument.  Even if all the cats you’ve seen have a black tale, it doesn’t mean that the next cat you see will have a black tale.  There are almost an infinite number of cats and to think they all have the same color of tale would be ludicrous.  All these scientists are saying by their logic is that in their experience, they haven’t seen a cat with a black tale.  But in an infinite cosmos, there is nothing within logic that precludes the next cat you see from having a black tale.  They may or may not exist, but you can not say logically that they don’t, only that you haven’t seen one.

 

Earlier I mentioned set theory as a method of understanding logic.  Sets can be defined by drawings that help us better understand the logic of the situation.  The above argument can be represented by the following diagram:

 

If we look at the larger circle labeled “A” we see that it would represent all of the cats that may exist.  This would be the finite set of all cats. “B” would represent all the cats that have been seen by any one person or by any group of persons.  Notice that this set is smaller than the overall set of cats and that it is a “subset” of the overall set of cats.  Since no one person or even a group of persons or even all human beings put together has seen every cat that exists, the set “B” must be smaller than the set “A,” which represents all cats.  It becomes obvious very quickly that no one has seen all cats, so no one can claim that every cat has black tails, even though they may claim that all cats they’ve seen have black tails.

 

This exact logic applies to the finding of meteorites.  Since no human being can say that they’ve seen every meteorite that has ever fallen on the Earth (remember 3/4ths of the Earth is water so probability would dictate that 3/4ths of all meteorites land in the water and are never seen) then the subset of meteorites seen by any individual or group of individuals will always be less than those meteorites that have landed on the Earth.  Any claim that all meteorites have exactly the same characteristics would only speak to the lack of experience of those making the statement and would not logically apply to the real world.

 

Set theory can get more complicated as we examine more complicated issues, but even then we can represent these situations by using set theory.  One might make the statement that all musicians are either male or female.  At first glance, that might seem true.  But let’s look at a set theory diagram of the previous argument.

Once we draw the sets correctly, we see that there is some overlap and the problem may not be as straight forward as we originally thought.  The truth is that our society is made mostly of people that identify themselves as male or female, but there is a smaller portion of our society where this breakdown is ambiguous.  Some people have sex change operations and convert from one sex to another.  Some people are born male in a female body and all kinds of variations are possible in a population as large as humanities.

 

When we look at the overlap between musicians, we see that some can fall into each of the different categories.   The purpose of this discussion is not to show our diversities of sexual orientation among humans, but to demonstrate how set theory can better help us study problems of logic.  If we are to be logical in our thoughts, actions and science, then we need to be more aware of all the implications of logic and its use in our language and society.

 

Many more set theory diagrams can be drawn but they are beyond the scope of this book.  The important concept presented here is that everyone that enters science or anyone that wants to be logical should study these concepts and apply them to their work and lives.

 

Recently, I heard someone make the statement, “If I can do it, then anyone can.”  At first glance, this statement might seem true if they were talking about some common human activity.  But when we really examine the statement or make a set theory diagram, we can see that it may be true some of the time, or most of the time, but it can’t be true all of the time.  There is too much diversity in humanity for the statement to be always true.

 

Let’s assume that the statement refers to the act of walking.  “If I can walk, then anyone can walk.”  A simple reflection on the people we know in our lives quickly disproves the statement.  All of us know someone that can’t walk.  Maybe they are too old or they were born without legs, but the statement is obviously false.  The problem arises because so many people accept the assumptions in a statement without further analysis of the situation.  This leads to miscommunication between humans and all miscommunications are a breaking of the connections of gravity that bind us together and therefore result in a decrease in the order of the cosmos. 

 

One problem of logic is that many people mix several different types of logic within the same logical problem and they never become aware of this mixing.  As a lay person, no one is required to learn logic, although it will benefit all.  But any scientist that doesn’t take the time to understand logic is not a true scientist.

 

Our world is made stronger by every varied viewpoint that we can find. I first conceived A New Philosophy of Space and Time over twenty years ago, and because I met so much discouragement, I chose not to pursue it for more than two decades. Now I realize that every new opinion is important and necessary. I would encourage all people, including scientists to study Boolean and other logic, and to learn what others think about these important subjects and to not be afraid of new ideas.

 

Music and logic are necessary for the survival of our species.  We need music to renew our spirit energies and we need logic to understand and properly react with the reality that exists outside our beings.

Chapter Seven

Gravionics and Philosophy

 

I think and think for months and years.  Ninety-nine times the conclusion is false.  The hundredth time I am right.

 - Albert Einstein

The thinking that we are has brought us to where we have already been. In order to go somewhere else, we must think in a different way. Albert Einstein

 

One question that I have been asked is “Can one study philosophy and learn anything about physics?”  I’ve been told that philosophy and physics are two different things, yet I would argue that every branch of knowledge is a sub-branch of philosophy.  In earlier times, the philosophers were respected, but in today’s world, very few respect the work of the philosopher.  Part of the reason is that science has progressed so quickly in the last few years that most philosophers were left behind.  My hope is that gravionics will soon make philosophy important and that every person will begin to participate.

 

Even though philosophy has come to mean "the study of old thoughts," in reality, philosophy is alive and well. Philosophy has many definitions, but one that I like is philosophy is the study of knowledge itself. What do we know and how do we know it?  All human thought is about the creation of models by which humanity represents reality.  The reality outside is always infinite, while our minds are always finite. As we become more aware that our models are only representations of reality, we are more likely to correctly interpret them and to apply that knowledge to our lives and science in a way that is beneficial to humanity.

 

If we look at a human mind under the light of the gravionic model, we see that the mind is basically a gravionic processor, which uses the connections and shapes of gravions to make the thoughts and memories that each of us calls our own. As we look at the situation philosophically, we see that each human being has made a model in their minds of what they think is real. From our discussions of the human eye, we understand that photons of light energy are changed to chemical and electrical energies and then reconstructed within our brains as an image we perceive to be real. The real thing sits outside our existence, and through the connections of gravity and the energies of our physical system, these "real things" are created anew within our minds.

 

All of human knowledge consists of models that we make to help us better understand the infinite cosmos we see before us. The very definition of life under the gravionic model is "those physical systems that use the connections of gravity to store information about the reality around them." Once we become aware that all knowledge is models of reality, we have a chance to understand how important philosophy is in the accumulation of our communal knowledge and the survival of our species.  

 

Science represents a communal model that uses words, pictures, and ideas to define the model.  I have called GMOPS the gravionic “model” of physical systems so that each time it’s name is spoken; we are reminded that it is a model, always once removed from the actual reality.

 

The more abstract that each level of physics becomes, the more closely do philosophy and physics become the same.

When I was young, I was taught about atoms and molecules and many small things that I couldn't ever expect to see. So what do we do? We see them in the mind's eye, through our imagination and by constructing models in our minds.  We then transfer those models to paper and words so that others might see the same vision. Each of us should understand that all models of physical systems are merely philosophical models, veiled under the guise of physical models? All branches of human knowledge are sub-branches of philosophy. 

 

Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge.  The reason is because our imagination is the only way we can really “see” the cosmos.  Every time we reduce imagination to words of knowledge, something is lost in the translation.  Please see the poem “Infinite Child” at the end of this book to better understand how I “see” the infinite cosmos around us.  In some ways, I have spent less time than anyone looking through a telescope to see this cosmos.  But in some ways, I see it more clearly than anyone else alive, because I use my minds eye and because I am aware of the models I create and how they represent nature, but are not nature herself.

 

Both Einstein and Stephen Hawking seem to agree and even suggest that the problems of the unification of the forces of the cosmos are, or may be, philosophical problems. Hawking laments in "A Brief History of Time" that the philosophers haven't been able to keep up with the progress in the technical and physical worlds. But this philosopher has kept up, since I have been very active in the microcomputer revolution and I have also loved and studied every aspect of scientific thought. I find that I agree with Einstein and Hawking on this issue, but I invite people of all persuasions to discuss openly and honestly their feelings and thoughts. We should all be able to disagree without becoming disagreeable and the survival of our species depends upon us learning to respect and love our differences.

 

Unlike Einstein who had to guess at a lot of stuff, the experiments I need to prove the gravionic model have already been conducted in science.  There is nothing left to be proven.  The people who have conducted these experiments do not understand what their results show, but the gravionic model has directly predicted many of the results, like those that show that "something" travels faster than the speed of light.

 

From the dictionary we can get a varied set of other definitions of philosophy including:

 

phi·los·o·phy (fĭ-lŏs'ə-fē)

n., pl. -phies.

 

1.  Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

2.  Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

3.  A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

4.  The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

5.  The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

6.  The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

7.  A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

8.  A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

 

My goal through this book would be to expand the definitions and to bring the awareness of philosophy into our everyday life.  There is no reason that our children, when they enter the first grade, can not be taught the gravionic model of physical systems and then instructed to become philosophers for the rest of their lives.  Today, so many people set down in front of their television set and never discuss a single philosophical idea with the members of their family.  They want to be entertained by trivial programs and thus never come to think deeply of the issues that face humanity and may threaten our very existence.

 

I sometimes get the vision in my head of these people, each distracted by the minutia of their own lives, sitting in front of their TVs, just as a large asteroid strikes our planet and wipes out all of humanity.  If we allow that situation to occur, then I would argue that we are no smarter than the dinosaurs.  This is a problem that mankind could solve, if only we were to recognize the threat and work together as a species to solve it.  When we work together, there is no problem we can not solve.  When we fight each other, we just waste our precious energies and decrease the chance that our species will survive.

 

Chapter Eight

Gravionics and Life in the Cosmos

 

Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. -Ralph Waldo Emerson-

 

One of the most interesting facets of an infinite cosmos is that life never has to have a beginning.  It could have existed all along and then just moves through the cosmos as materials are distributed from solar system to solar system.  This doesn’t mean that life can’t start anew, but we already have very good evidence that bacteria can survive in space for indefinite periods.  Several of the Apollo missions apparently showed that bacteria could survive a trip to the moon and back on the outside of the spaceship and many people now think that bacteria in the upper atmosphere are coming from space on a regular basis.

 

I have my own evidence that bacteria and other forms of life can make the trip between planets.  A meteorite I recovered on my great aunt’s ranch seems to show that life has been coming from somewhere (probably Mars) to Earth for most of our planet’s existence.  Mars is a smaller planet than Earth and probably cooled quicker and became ready for life sooner (although new evidence now indicates the Earth might have cooled much sooner than once thought).  If life is everywhere in the cosmos as I suspect, then it doesn’t take long for life to find new planets and quickly begin populating them.

 

I was working on my great aunt’s ranch after leaving the Marine Corps in 1970.  It was the winter of ‘70-71 and I was helping my aunt feed the cattle on her ranch.  Our routine was the same every day.  We would start early and load the feed (called cake) into her Chevy Blazer and then we would move to the first pasture.  We made the same rounds every day, since a regular schedule helps the cattle come in for their feed.  We would show up about the same time every day in every pasture.  

 

One of the rules that my aunt enforced was that we didn’t feed a single cow in any pasture until every cow and calf came in to the feeding place.  This was usually near the wind mill, so the cattle could drink after they ate.  The process was the same for each pasture.  We would both count the cattle and my aunt would then ask me to reveal my count.  She always made me give my count first so I wouldn’t just agree with her, if her count showed that all the cattle were in.  As I said, we couldn’t put out the feed unless all the cattle were in and I couldn’t eat my lunch until all the pastures of cattle were fed.  So I had a great incentive to find and count all the cattle.  By the way, all real cowboys count cattle by first counting all their feet, and then dividing by four.  J

 

As a short aside, many scientists don’t respect the observational abilities of ranchers and farmers.  It has been my experience that farmers and ranchers tend to really know their land, because they spend so much time there.  Many people in the meteoritic community don’t believe farmers and ranchers when they say that a new rock has shown up on their land.  I have been constantly amused and amazed as I read articles about meteorites falling on farm or ranch land.  The article always ends with the statement that the rock will be taken to a university to determine if it is a meteorite.  The arrogance of these people is beyond comprehension.  I’m sure there are situations where a rock can fall on a ranch or farm and have a terrestrial explanation.  But for the most part, these are meteorites whether they are proclaimed a meteorite or not by the “scientific” community.

 

Our route was the same every day.  My aunt always kept some of her pastures cattle free, so that the grass could grow and so that she could later move cattle into the pasture.  I won’t list all the pastures on her ranch, but we started each day at the Red Mill, so named because the windmill tower was made of wood and painted red.  After feeding that pasture we moved to the Southeast Pasture.  I’ll let you guess why it had this name.  After the Southeast, we would drive through the Middle pasture, which had no cattle.  Next we went to the Sidna Pasture and then into the North Meadow.

 

On this particular day, we were leaving the Sidna.  The road between the two pastures heads west for a few hundred yards and then turns almost due North in the North Meadow.  The second we turned north, both of us saw this rock sitting on the prairie another few hundred yards ahead of us.  In the winter time, the grass is yellow and this red rock stood out like a sore thumb.

 

My aunt kind of made a gasping sound and asked what that was on her ranch.  The ranch was very private and very few people were ever on the ranch except the oil guys who checked her gas wells on a daily basis.  But this was nowhere near any of the oil roads and we were basically the only people that ever went into the North Meadow. 

 

When my aunt asked what the object was, I told her that it must be a meteorite, since it had obviously fallen from the sky.  It had landed only about 100 feet from the road we were on, so we continued until we came up next to it and she turned and drove over to about 30 feet from the rock.  I got out and went to investigate.

 

As I walked up, I knew this was an important situation and that I had prayed my whole life for a meteorite.  I wasn’t certain that this was truly a meteorite and I was afraid someone had played a trick on me, although almost no one knew I was on the ranch.  So I approached carefully and stopped about 10 or 15 feet from the rock to just look over the situation.  I wanted to make sure that there were no footprints anywhere.  In the winter time when the area is dry, the sandy soil makes a crust and it was clear that there were no animal or people foot prints anywhere around the rock.

 

As I walked a little further, I could see a small indentation about 18 inches due north of the rock.  It looked as if it had bounced the one time and then came to rest where it now stood.  I only had a few seconds to look the situation over, as my aunt began honking the horn for me to hurry.  She was not interested in rocks, only cattle. So I quickly picked up the rock and headed back to the Blazer.

 

As I sat with the rock in my lap, a thought came into my mind.  I thought, “In an infinite cosmos, anything could be in this rock, even life.”  I truly did not believe that life was in the rock, only that it was possible.  I looked over to my aunt and asked her if I could have the rock because it was her ranch that the rock had landed on.  She said, sure I could have it.  Why would she want a rock?  From her viewpoint, it was only covering up the grass that was necessary for her cattle.  We continued feeding the cattle and took the rock back to the ranch house where I kept it for the next year or so.

 

The next day, we went into town and I stopped by the library and looked up meteorites.  I found a book and it said there should be a melted outer crust (called the fusion crust) and that sometimes, little pieces of material would also be melted on the outside of the rock and would appear as bright and shiny objects.  It was very obvious that the outside had been melted and I could also find some little specks that reflected a lot of light.

 

After thinking about the situation for three days, I concluded the rock was probably from Mars.  I was disappointed that it was not a piece of a star, even though my childhood prayer had been for God to send me a piece of space.  I new it wasn’t a star because it was just too light in weight and I thought that a piece of a star would have to be very heavy.

 

The reason I thought the rock was from Mars was threefold.  First it was red and Mars was known as the red planet.  After the Pathfinder landed on Mars, we were told that Mars should be called the butterscotch colored planet.  The meteorite contained a grayish red exterior, a redder rock inside the gray rock and butterscotch colored sand between the two other layers.

 

The next thing that was obvious about the meteorite was that it was created by volcanic action.  I didn’t know at the time, but I just assumed that Mars was large enough to have volcanoes.  Now we know that Mars has the largest and oldest volcanoes in the solar system.

 

The third thought that I had was that Mars was in the proper place in the solar system to get rocks to Earth.  At first, I thought the rock was a volcanic bomb that had been blown out of a volcano on Mars.  I later learned that rocks could escape the gravity of Mars when large asteroids hit the surface at the proper angle and that this was more likely the method of how the rock was ejected from the surface of Mars.  Also, after I tested the rock, I learned that it was made in at least two lava flows, with different creation dates, eliminating the volcanic bomb model. A volcanic bomb would be created in a single event and couldn’t have two ages of creation.  Also it couldn’t have small pieces of insects and plants within it, since they would be melted if they were in the heart of a volcano.

 

I also thought that any material ejected from Mars would probably be pulled inwards towards the sun and thus some would pass near the Earth’s orbit and if the Earth were nearby, it would pull this material to itself.  If the material was large enough, it could make the trip all the way to the surface of the Earth and would land as a meteorite.  NASA now estimates that a thousand pounds of Mars lands on Earth every year.  I still think my original conclusions are valid, even after almost thirty years of rethinking this issue many times.

 

For the next 15 or 20 years, I mostly kept the rock in my closet.  But on numerous occasions, especially when my life would hit a rocky road and times were tough, I would get out the meteorite and just look at it to remind myself that God answers prayers and that miracles still happen.  After my kids were born, they would often sit on the meteorite when I would leave it out for a few days in my living room.

 

At some point during this period, I noticed that “fuzz” seemed to be growing out of a crevice in the meteorite.  I thought that was strange, since the rock had been wiped clean by its transit through the Earth’s atmosphere.  Since there was nothing else to compare with this experience, I just put the rock away and kept this information in the back of my mind.  Every time after that, I would look at the fuzz with my microscope and just wonder what it could mean.  It seemed to grow over the years, but I didn’t do anything further until 1996 when NASA announced they had found the possible remnants of life in a Martian meteorite they had recovered from Antarctica.

 

At that point, I decided to contact the meteoritic community and tell them of my discovery.  I had refrained from taking it to any scientific institution, because I was afraid they would take the rock away from me and it was my own personal miracle.

 

I found a meteoritic scientist on the internet and arranged to send him a sample.  When I broke off a small sample, some sand fell out, but that fact didn’t register until I was half way to the post office.  When I got back, I took some of the sand and looked at it under my microscope and in the very first view; I saw what appeared to be a small piece of plant material.  At that point I had to face the fact that Mars (or at least some other planet besides Earth) had been alive and that we were not alone in the cosmos.

 

With the fuzz still in mind, I knew I had a moral dilemma.  I knew that if I told the scientist that there might be life in the meteorite that they would not be likely to believe me and it might keep them from studying the meteorite.  On the other hand, if I were to lie to them and not tell them the truth, I might subject them to the harmful effects of the life of another world.  I decided to remain truthful and immediately e-mailed the scientist to warn him that he may be facing the life of another world.  I guess that no meteoritic scientist has taken me seriously since that point, but I have continued to grow this fuzz in my Petri dishes every since and they are still alive and growing to this day.

 

Because of this situation and the uniqueness of my meteorite, it has still not been studied by any “real” scientist.  The world doesn’t know of the life of Mars and I don’t know why this information has been withheld from the people of planet Earth.

 

To make the matter even more complicated, several years ago people began contacting me through my web site and said that they had a disease with little filaments that look very much like the filaments (fuzz) in the meteorite.  It turns out that this might represent the first extraterrestrial disease, which is now called Morgellons.  Several thousand people suffer from it and it is apparently centralized in three major locations, which may be associated with Martian meteorite falls.  At least one of these meteorite falls appears to have landed in a lake that supplies drinking water and this may be one of the methods of transmission.

 

With this evidence, I have come to believe that life is everywhere in an infinite cosmos and that life has been coming from Mars (and elsewhere) to Earth for billions of years. 

 

This makes so much sense in an infinite cosmos.  Several of the nearby stars are more than a billion years older than our sun.  Stars often (in cosmic terms) pass near each other and it would be easy for life carrying asteroids to move between solar systems and inoculate them with life.  In an infinite cosmos, there has been plenty of time for this to happen.  In an infinite cosmos, this is what one would expect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 9

On Evolution

 

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein, (1879-1955) What I Believe.

 

After reading the many discussions on evolution, it is apparent to me that most people are confusing the principles of evolution with the mechanisms of evolution. Almost everyone I know believes in the principles of evolution, even though many won't admit it.

 

The principles of evolution are thus:

 

1.  Every organism caries information about itself in its genetic material.

 

2.  Every offspring contains the mixing of genetic material from its parents.

 

3.  Any offspring that does not survive to mating, will not pass on its genetic material.

 

To make this matter very personal, if you and your mate have a single child and that child dies before having children, your genes will not be passed on. This is just common sense and needs little argument. If one believes in DNA and genetic material, then you logically believe in the principles of evolution. Even the most ardent fundamental Christians seem to believe that their children look like themselves and they expect their children to pass on genetic material to the next generation. This concept represents the principles of evolution.

 

The mechanisms of evolution are what lead scientist to disagree.  What concerns scientists are the details of how God, nature, or aliens changes organisms through time. Does evolution go in small steps or large steps?  What outside forces affect evolution? 

 

Darwin suggested natural selection as the mechanism. Others could say that the selection is God based or even alien based.  But in the end, it comes down to some individuals and species living and some individuals and species dying, because of their interaction with an ever changing environment.  It seems funny to me that so many fundamental Christians are very interested in natural foods, but not in natural selection. Isn't nature a part of God?

 

One argument against evolution asks why evolution isn't continuing today. Well it is. Every leaf and every tree and every animal shows its evolutionary path, if one just looks. Every year new viruses evolve to give us a new version of the flu or common cold. Every dog alive today is the result of man's unnatural selection of those qualities he wants to see in his dog and every dog is evolved from the wolf.

 

The problem comes with evolution because some religions preach that one must take the Bible in a literal fashion or one is not a true believer. Yet Jesus spoke in parables and it escapes me why those same people can believe that Jesus talked in stories, but Genesis isn't a story. The Bible is a book of religion, not history. I don't recall Jesus ever talking about evolution. After all, all time spent discussing evolution is time that we can't be helping someone else and sharing the love that Jesus taught us, which should be the goal of any Christian.

 

The problem in the argument between creationism and macro evolution, as it has been called, is that every creationist that I have talked to have a different view of what creationism means.  I have friends who believe that everything that ever existed was instantly brought into existence 6,000 years ago.  Others believe that only the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, but the rest of the cosmos can be as old as it wants.  Some believe that life can evolve on Mars, but just don't like the idea that human life evolved on Earth. 

 

The main argument seems to revolve around a belief in God.  Many fundamental Christians don't accept anyone that doesn't believe as they do.  They think to believe in God, one must believe in his magical powers 6,000 years ago to have created everything from nothing.  I wonder what God did before He created everything!  In an infinite cosmos, He was always busy.  The main point though is that many other Christians believe that God created us through the process of evolution.  Because one doesn't believe in Creationism doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in God.  If we examine the total religions of the world, we find only a small part (fundamental Christians) that doesn’t believe in evolution, as a method by which God can work.

 

The word creationism has now been changed to the more politically correct phrase of intelligent design.  The model states that life is too complicated to have evolved on its own and there must be someone intelligently moving life towards order.  I have to admit that mankind has moved very quickly to an “intelligent” being over the last few thousand years.  However, this doesn’t mean that only God could accomplish this task.  If alien life has risen to awareness, as we seem to be doing, then it could easily have migrated to Earth.  We could be the work of alien technologies that have manipulated our DNA, for some unknown reason, and that could represent intelligent design.

 

One argument that some Creationist use is that there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  Micro-evolution would be the small changes that occur within any species, like the color of skin in humans.  Macro-evolution would be the major changes that distinguish one species from another.   Some Creationist say that micro-evolution is OK, but there is no evidence of macro-evolution

 

If one says there is no evidence for macro evolution, I would say you are wrong.   There is plenty of evidence.  What most people are saying when they make this argument, is that they haven't studied science and evolution enough to see the evidence.  Every leaf of every tree tells of its history and all the processes that have brought it to the place it is today.  All of this is recorded in the DNA of each living creature.  Recent evidence indicates that macro-evolution takes place in the centromeres of chromosomes.  These are the central regions of the chromosomes where the “legs” of each DNA strand attach.  Apparently, most of the micro-evolution takes place on the legs of the chromosome, while macro-evolution (change of species) takes place in the centromeres.

 

If you want to really see the evidence for the process of evolution, look at embryology.  I have had a number of people tell me that they don't believe that an organism as complex as a human being could possibly evolve from a single cell.  So I tell them, look in the mirror and you will see an organism that evolved from a single cell.  You were once just a single cell.  Then it divided and became a little more complex creature with two cells.  After a few divisions, we see the evidence of bilateral symmetry emerging, which clearly separates us from many of the creatures of this world.  But at this point in the evolution of any particular creature, we can't tell what creature it will become.  All mammals look basically alike at this stage and it is only the DNA that tells the final story of what this creature is to become.

 

At a later stage, even human beings have gill slits that clearly show our relationship to those creatures that live in the sea.  As our embryo grows, it slowly makes all the parts that we call a human being.  If you want to see macro evolution in progress, then simply take a course on human embryology and you will see all the changes that brought us from a single cell to the multi-cell creature we represent today.  

 

How much change does one have to see, to admit macro evolution?   The Hawaiian Islands are a relatively new land form that arose by volcanic action from beneath the sea a few tens of millions of years ago.  As this new land appeared, birds were able to migrate to this new land and began to adapt to the new environment that they had found.  As different birds from a single species took up residence on different parts of the island, they were faced with different food sources and thus developed different bills to match the food source each chose.  Some of the birds of Hawaii show vast differentiation in bill design, and all in only a few million years. 

 

As another example of macro-evolution, the English sparrow was introduced in Central Park in New York City in the year 1850.  Since that time, the species has migrated across America and differentiated into three different sub species, based on their environment.  I have spent a great deal of time observing the English sparrow.  For many years I lived in the city and became acquainted with the "city" sparrows.  Recently I spent time in the desert and got to know the desert sparrows.  These two creatures have developed very different personalities.  The city sparrows are very much afraid of all humans and will never come close, even after years of feeding them.  The desert sparrows around Socorro, New Mexico don't appear to fear human beings and will come within a few feet in only a matter of days.   This seems to be related to the vast number of feral cats that live in and around Socorro.  The sparrows have learned that the feral cats will not come around human beings and so the sparrow is more “safe” when it feeds near human beings.  The “city” sparrows have not had this experience and thus developed different behavior patterns than the desert sparrows.

 

When considering macro evolution, I think many people don't consider the true diversity of animals within any species.  Every member of every species "sees" things from its own viewpoint.  Even though members of a species tend to have common traits, each individual has its own viewpoint and its own interaction with its environment.  The very concept of free will in each individual assures that over time, individuals will vary and will vary to fit their environment, in their efforts to survive.  Just because some can't see every step that nature has made, doesn't mean that nature didn't make the step.  One thing I learned a long time ago was to never let my imagination predetermine what nature can do.  Nature’s imagination (or God) is infinite, so I wouldn't think of trying to place limits on it.  Don't confuse human limits with the limits of God or nature.

 

One thing that seems to bother all creationists is the concept of natural selection.  I don't understand why they don't like this term.  After all, if I told them I had some natural ingredients, or natural food, or natural vitamins, they would be elated.  Why should natural selection be less?  What is the alternative?   Unnatural selection? 

 

Natural selection merely states that those individual that survive to mating, pass on their genetic material, and can be considered as successful.  I don't know why this implies that God is not somehow good, because creatures try and fail.  We can never know the final outcome, so how can we place goodness or badness on any creature’s life, since we don't know its place in the overall scheme of things.  Good or bad should always be confined to the actions of a sentient being.  Natural selection just seems, natural, to me.   

 

We know that every individual of every species will eventually die.  The question is always “Will the species survive?”  Thus the ultimate good is related to the survival of the species, not the survival of individuals within the species.   I know that I will one day die.  What is yet to be determined is will the human species live or will we continue to make such bad decisions that we either destroy our environment or destroy ourselves.  Each of us has the opportunity to live our lives in such a way that we contribute to the survival of our species by creating as much order as we can from the highest perspective that we can muster.

 

One of the problems that I have sought to understand during my life is what is the difference between living things and non-living things?   During my stay at Texas Tech, when the gravionic model first began to arise in my mind, I was working at three jobs while attending college.  One of my jobs was working at a nursing home where I had to take care of many old people.  More than once, a patient would die while on my shift.  Many times these people would be alone at their death and that always troubled me that no one came to be with them in their last hour.  So I would be with them.  I would hold their hands and let them know that someone cared, even at their last breath.  But as I stood there and watched these people die, I always wondered "What is the difference between life and death?"   One moment, they are alive and then the next moment they are gone.  What happened in that moment?  Where did the energy of their human spirit go when they died?  What is the difference between the living and the non living?

 

As my life has progressed, I have continued to view this problem from different angles.   I studied science and it seemed we could generally tell when things were alive (although things like viruses and prions seem a problem) but there was never a good definition of life to me.   Many Native Americans believe that the Earth itself is alive and I can't find fault with that view.  As we look at our world, we are finding life in places we never expected and living under conditions that we once thought were impossible. 

 

If I take some dirt, I would find that it is full of life.  If I wanted, I could make two piles from the dirt and put all of the living things in one pile and then put everything that was not living in the second pile.  As a thought experiment, let's take the pile of living things and put them in our mouth and eat them.  What has just happened?  Well, the energy of the life in the dirt has now become the energy of my spirit, as I digest the little critters, assuming they don’t “eat” me first.  Where is the difference between life and death?  

 

But now let's take the pile of dead stuff and eat it.  What has happened?  Some of the molecules that were once part of a dead system are now alive in me, as my body absorbs different chemicals and molecules.  Where is the difference between life and death, the living and the nonliving?  It seems to me, that in the end, there is very little difference.  If viewed from the proper perspective, the entire planet Earth can be viewed as a living system, since all the Earth is in the process of moving from a dead system to a system where life is everywhere.  Order is increasing as the Earth evolves.

 

In all my work, I have tried to find the simplest rules possible to explain what I see around me.  I believe that I can show that the first systems that store information are probably just molecules.  Are they alive?  Once they begin storing information about the cosmos, then I choose to call them alive.  The definition of life is therefore those physical systems that use the connections of gravity to store information about the reality around them.   You may disagree with my conclusions or definitions, but my goal is to stimulate the discussion of these important issues, so that the life of the future can be better and more rewarding than the life of today.

 

There are many different processes that lead to the change in species, including radiation, gravitational changes, interspecies mating, genetic crossovers between species, and probably many that we haven't yet come to understand.  But because we don't understand ever little detail, doesn't mean that the overall rules aren't working.  It just means that we don't yet understand.

 

I don't know if you have heard of Zig Zigler.  I have studied much of what he said, and a friend of his once told a story about bumble bees.  In those days, science didn't know how bumble bees could fly, since their wings were not large enough to support their bodies, by the current scientific understanding.  The moral of the story that Zig wanted to make was that each of us should “bee” all that we could "bee."  The story involved the “fact” that the bumble bee didn't know they couldn't fly, so they just flew. 

 

Science later determined that bumble bees get lift on both their down and up stroke, thus their wings only need to be half the size of something that only gets lift on one stroke.   They do not break any rules of science.   The completion of this story is that science was not wrong.  It only had an inadequate model of the bee. Once science progressed, reality and science eventually met. 

 

It is still important to teach every child that the cosmos is infinite, and that there are no limits on what they can "bee" except those limits that they (or others) impose upon themselves.  That seems much better than telling them they come from a finite cosmos that has limits and therefore they have limits on what they can accomplish.    Even if we don’t presently understand something in science, it doesn’t mean that science won’t eventually discover a better model that explains what we see.  Nothing need be accepted on faith, as gravionic science tries to understand all real events, processes and physical systems.

 

Many creationists argue that all mutations are harmful and therefore can’t lead to changes in a species.  I agree that mutation is usually harmful, but I don't agree that every mutation is harmful.  Science has long misunderstood the difference between possibility and probability.  Just because something is improbable, doesn't mean it can't happen.  I have defined a miracle as infinite possibilities overcoming the finite probabilities.  Most mutations do lead to the death of the individual before it reproduces.  But in an infinite cosmos with infinite possibilities every once in a great while, mutations occur which are effective and beneficial to the species or cause new species to arise.  Life is always trying every possible combination, because in the end, we never know what might be the most effective route to the continued existence of any species.

 

In some ways, I am a perfect example.  I am not "normal" and represent in some ways, extreme variation within the human species.   Yet the savior of any species, I believe, is diversity.  Most members of any species tend to follow the same rules and provide the foundation of the species.  But one thing we know for certain is that the environment of any species will not remain the same.  As members of a species attempt to fill every niche, some are bound to discover a niche that is more survival able, when calamities arise.  Natural selection does act as an inhibitor, from some viewpoints.  From other viewpoints, it acts to fill every niche possible with every life that can figure out how to make a living in that situation.  In the end, this diversity is necessary for the survival of any species and we should cherish the diversity of our species rather than trying to make everyone be the same.

 

One of the things that I have learned is that love is hardest when it comes to those of us that are different.  Each of us, whether we believe in God or not, usually show love to our friends and those that are similar to ourselves but find it hard to love those that are not like ourselves.  The hardest part of life is learning to love those that are different.  Sometimes, it seems to me, that the fundamental Christians are the least likely to love those that are different.  Many times, they even say that everyone that doesn't believe in God in the same way that they do, is evil.  I believe that a spiritual life can be led in many ways and should never be limited by the beliefs of others.

 

One of the problems we have faced as a species rising to awareness on our small one G planet, is are we alone.  The evidence from the Frass Meteorite and other sources indicate to me that Mars is also a living planet.  With only the Earth as an example, it might be hard to examine the evolution of life and it is easier to say that God just started life, without giving a scientific explanation for that life.  But if the cosmos is infinite and life is also on Mars, then maybe a comparison of Martian and Terrestrial Evolution might be in order.

 

Some of the most interesting questions to me, are how does life differ as it evolves on two different planets?  What things are similar and what things are different?  What energy sources can life make use of?  Is life based on carbon everywhere?  Is DNA used by life on other planets?  Was life moved from Mars to Earth by earlier meteorite transports?  Has the evolution of life on Earth been affected by the transport of Martian material?  Or have the two evolutionary mechanisms evolved so differently, that they don't interact easily?

 

One of the first things to consider is where does life get its initial energy. On Earth, this energy basically comes from the sun. The sun shines energy on the planet, and many organisms have developed to directly convert this energy through photosynthesis into chemical energy for its own use. We generally call these plants. Then larger organisms eat these and larger organisms eat these and so on. Until recently, science thought that maybe all energy came from the sun.  But lately, we have found whole new sets of organisms that get their energy from chemical energy near underwater volcanic vents and some organisms deep within the Earth that have no apparent energy source, other than heat and the rocks around them.  One of the first things to consider when evaluating the evolution of life on Mars, is where did this life get most of its energy?

 

After seeing our sun as viewed from Mars and realizing how small it appears, I tend to think that the life on Mars was much the reverse of life on Earth.  Most of Mars life's energies probably came from chemical energies through the volcanic systems, with a smaller percentage coming from sunlight. There just isn't as much sunlight energy falling on the surface of Mars as falls on the Earth.

 

I think most of the energy for life on Mars came from the chemical energies of volcanoes, since it appears to me, that the life of Mars evolved around these volcanoes for most of the history of Mars. Chemical energy as the basis for the food chain could very well explain why the Viking life experiments proved so hard to interpret.  I am assuming that the base of the food chain on Mars was bacteria or bacteria-like life forms that clustered around volcanic vents and obtained their energy from these vents. Later, these organisms provide food for more complex and larger creatures to evolve.

 

On Earth, we divide the life of our planet into several categories. At first, we just had plants and animals and then we discovered a whole class of tiny things that don't fall into any category with much consistency. So how do the classifications of Earth hold up when we examine the debris from the Frass Meteorite?  Surprisingly, the categories hold up better than one might expect.

 

I have no way of seeing bacteria or other very small life forms, so my observations are based on the things that I can see.  Since there is macroscopic debris from living systems within the Frass Meteorite, we must assume that there was some food base that supported these "large" creatures.  It does appear that life on Mars did evolve to both plants and animals. There are clearly pieces of debris that look like the "stalk" of plants, or something that was attached to the surface in some way. These are round and long and seem to be "wood-like" in their nature.  Also there are a number of insect-like forms that represent a great diversity of creatures that moved on Mars.  These include flying insects, land insects, and apparent water insects (much like shrimp).

 

In the animal world of our planet, there are two major divergent directions when it comes to the symmetry of the animal. Many primitive animals on Earth have radial symmetry. This means they "radiate" out around a central point like a starfish. As life became more complex, it developed bilateral symmetry, which is what humans and other animals represent: two sides that are mirror images of each other. Again, we see both types of creatures in the meteorite debris, although the specimen that I have for radial symmetry may yet be a plant or flower.

 

On Earth, we have "soft" creatures that have developed in the water, and we have "hard" creatures that have made a shell and then left the water to live on land. All insects would be in this category.  It seems the process of making a shell to hold one's water "inside" is a good practice around the cosmos, since it also looks like the creatures of Mars have learned to make shells to protect themselves. 

 

What are these shells made of?  Is it the same chemistry as Earth?  It looks to me like the creatures of Mars have made more use of silicon than many Earth creatures, but this still remains to be seen.

 

Soft creatures don't tend to be preserved as easily as something with a shell, so on Earth, finding old "soft" things is much harder than finding old "hard" things. The same is probably true on Mars, although the conditions on Mars at the present time should be very good for preserving the remains of things that once lived there.  I have found no "soft" creatures in the debris, unless you count the glassies that I believe are a Martian glass fungus, which are still living within the Meteorite to this day.

 

As far as "hard" creatures that are in the animal category, I have found worms, bugs, and spiders. Does this seem reasonable?  I think it does.  The insects are the most successful species on our planet and it looks like they have done the same on Mars.  The only disadvantage to being an insect is the size of an exoskeleton that the creature can develop. The creatures on Mars would tend to stay small due to the lack of a global water supply and less energy available from the sun and volcanoes for most of the planet's history.  Small creatures have little to gain evolutionary in "learning" to be "large" animals "out of the water."  

 

The planet history of Mars would favor small "insect" like creatures. All of the creatures I have found so far in the Frass Meteorite have been very tiny and even the bacteria like formations within ALH-84001 (the famous Martian “life” meteorite recovered by NASA) seem to be much smaller than similar Earthly organisms.  Small Martian life seems reasonable, since Mars just never had the energy that Earth has enjoyed and thus "things" probably never got very big on Mars. Mars was probably a planet of miniatures.

 

Another question is the question of the use of carbon as the main mechanism of life. On Earth, all life is carbon based that we know of. It has been proposed that life might evolve around silicon as an alternative. Since there seems to be a lot of silicon hanging around Mars, did the Martian creatures evolve around silicon as the base or did they use carbon, as terrestrial creatures do? The answer, apparently, is that the Martian creatures also use carbon, just as we do. On two of the samples from the Frass Meteorite that I had tested, I included representative mixtures of the debris of once living things. I had these tested for organic and inorganic carbon. The tests came back showing that organic carbon was present. Therefore, I am assuming that the creatures of Mars also used carbon as their basic element, and maybe even all life in the cosmos uses carbon as the basic element.  We know that it works on Earth.

 

The next question is the question of DNA. DNA, or RNA in some organisms on Earth, provides the "code" that stores the information about how the organism is to develop. Clearly, for any life to become organized, it must have something that at least plays the same role as DNA or RNA. The question is, "Do Martian creatures use DNA or something else?"  Since I am assuming that Martian creatures use carbon, I think this fact makes it more likely that the Martian creatures also use DNA as the primary method of passing on information to successive generations, since the DNA molecules are carbon based.  I have no way of testing for DNA yet, but it sure would be interesting to see if the debris from the meteorite has DNA and how it would compare to terrestrial DNA.

 

On Earth, when populations are separated from each other, they tend to evolve differently, because they are faced with different situations. On Mars, it looks like there may have been some common early evolution, in the form of the early ocean(s). But sometime in the planet's history, it lost the oceans and life was confined to the calderas and pools of the large ancient volcanoes.  I suspect these calderas were filled with water and had many volcanic vents "leaking" into them. This would have provided the energy and water necessary for life to evolve over the eons of time.

 

Since large distances separate some of these volcanoes and the creatures seem very small, it is entirely possible that Mars acted much like a giant laboratory for life to develop differently at each volcano. If there was little or no interaction between the different volcanoes, the life of each volcano could have become separated from the rest of the planet, and so each volcano might be like a different planet, in some ways. On the other hand, there may be vast underground streams and passageways that allowed life to "move" from system to system.  Also, if there was an extended ocean or oceans, then life could easily move around the planet.  Additionally, Mars is now a windy planet with global dust storms that encompass the entire planet.  This could provide a mechanism to move small creatures across the surface of Mars.  The only way we will ever know is to go there and find out.

 

Chapter 10

Respect for Diversity

 

The man who follows the crowd will usually get no further than the crowd. The man who walks alone is likely to find himself in places no one has ever been. -Alan Ashley-Pitt

Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. -Ralph Waldo Emerson-

 

I first became interested in this subject during an incidence whereby a Hispanic man slaughtered a pig within the city limits of Amarillo, Texas and disturbed his neighbors in the process. The man was attempting to follow his family traditions, which included the ceremonial slaughtering of an animal to bring his family together and to feed his family. The squealing of the pig involved in this process disturbed some of his neighbors.  

 

It seems the tradition in his family was to hit the pig in the head with a sledge hammer to kill the pig quickly and efficiently.  But having little practice and having only a baseball bat, the act was not accomplished quickly or efficiently.  Upon hitting the pig in the head with the bat, the man discovered that he had not hit hard enough and the pig was not killed by the blow.  On the contrary, the pig did not understand his role in the ceremony and so began to squeal loudly and continuously.   It was only after a number of minutes and a number of blows did the pig die, so he could be the center of the ceremony.

 

The neighbors could hear this entire process and were not aware of the traditions of the Hispanic man. They thought the act was barbaric and cruel. I was not compelled to write this until the PETA people continued their assault on the morality of those who eat meat. They placed a billboard proclaiming that Christ was a vegan (or militant vegetarian).  This seemed to ignore the fact that one of Christ’s first miracles was the multiplying of fishes and loaves of bread to feed thousands of people who had come to listen to Him. 

 

I think the issues of eating meat and the ceremonies of the various races that make up America and the world are intimately tied together and represent the essence of one of the most important conflicts of our civilization.

 

Animal slaughter must surely be one of the most significant issues in determining the maturity of any civilization, but not for the reasons that many of you might think.  It seems there is a perception that we are civilized if we act like everyone else that is in our group.  But that is where the problem begins, because not all groups act alike.  Each group acts differently because each group has been taught differently and had different experiences.  Thus, I will contend that a mature society is one where differences are celebrated, cherished, and preserved as vital to the survival of the species.  In a diverse society, some will eat meat and some will not and that is good for the species.

 

This conflict centers around the fact that, in general, human nature makes people want to be around other people that are similar. We all have the desire to associate with those people who look like us, who share are interests, and who have the same values as ourselves. We each tend to stay around the people that are the most like us, or at least we perceive they are the most like us. We like for others to have the same habits and to react to situations the same way.

 

But all the lessons of life on this planet surely must teach us that diversity is the greatest strength of any species. The best hope for humanities survival lies not in all of us becoming the same thing, but in our continued efforts to be individuals working together and celebrating the things that make us different.

 

The more niches a species occupies, the better are its chances of survival when part of its niches are destroyed.  Thus we, as a civilization, are caught in this giant cosmic tug-of-war. A part of us wants all others to be like we are. But the overriding concern of the survival of the species requires us to be diverse in our cultures and ideas. So the mark of a truly great civilization is not one that ignores issues of diversity, but rather one that strives to understand those differences and then uses love to overcome the problems created by that diversity.

 

As an example, if mankind where to occupy additional planets of this solar system, then he wouldn't be in so much danger from the strike of a large meteorite or a small virus. Society shouldn't be about the process of making us all alike, but rather should foster the differences we each have, and through love, learn to get along with those that are not like ourselves.

 

The position of PETA implying that people who don't eat meat are somehow more moral than those who do, and a sign proclaiming Jesus was a vegetarian are perfect examples of people who want everyone to be just like them.  Let us examine the ethics of the process of man caring for animals and then eating their bodies to nourish our own, a process that is Biblically supported.  For Christians, the Bible clearly tells us that God gave the plants and animals of this planet for mankind to use as we please. We must only use them wisely to please God.

 

As a matter of ethics, the ultimate good for any species must involve the survival of the species. From the viewpoint of that species, those things that happen that tend to help the survival of the species must be considered good for that species and things that lead to the death of that species must be considered as bad for that species. The good of the lives of the individuals must always be measured in relationship to the good of the entire species. The death of an individual is not as bad as the death of the species.  As an example, Edgar Allen Poe probably caused his own early death by his use of various drugs.  But what he left humanity in the form of his writings is priceless, for our species.

 

Let's examine the variations that are possible from the viewpoint of any animal species.  There are three possibilities about the life of an animal.  First the animal may not have any existence at all. Second, the animal may have an existence and live totally in nature, without the help of human beings.  Third, an animal may live in nature, but be under the influence of human beings in its care and/or upbringing.

 

In the first case, many animals would not even have an existence, if not for mankind wanting to use their flesh and hides.  For instance, if human beings stopped eating beef, then cattle would slowly disappear from the planet and only those animals able to survive in nature without the help of man would be left.  There would be no vast herds of cattle roaming the panhandle of Texas, if there were not first an economic reason to go to all the work to keep these animals alive.  The total number of animals of that species would drop dramatically and that would be bad for the species, especially if it eventually led to the death of the species.

 

If PETA had its way, there would be far fewer animals on the planet to even have a chance to enjoy their existence. Thus, no existence would be worse than even a bad existence, if the species benefits from that "bad" existence.

 

So what about those animals that have existence, but are not influenced by mankind?  Animals in nature are always eaten be other animals and many of them never make it to adulthood.  Nature is a very violent place and animals die terrible deaths daily.  Animals don't humanely shoot other animals, they just eat them alive.  Try watching a lion catch and eat an animal if you want to see a horrible death.  If mankind wasn't involved in the life of cattle, then those cattle now raised by humans would either not exist or they would be faced with the terrors of nature. Cattle in nature face many obstacles and they have few chances for a long and happy life.  Thus, animals in nature spend much of their time in terror, always trying to eat without being eaten.

 

Being protected by humans is clearly, from the viewpoint of the species, the best scenario to keep cattle on the planet.  As long as mankind survives and uses cattle bodies, the survival of the bovine species is assured and the most good comes to them from their involvement and dependence on man.  As long as man likes to eat beef, cattle will always have a secure future and the same can not be said for their survival alone in nature.  Many cattle that I have "known" have had superior existences because the people who took care of them loved them so much.  This clearly could never happen "in nature."  So from the viewpoint of the cow, man's interference in its life is good for that animal species.

 

Next let's examine the question from the viewpoint of mankind.  It is obvious to anyone who has studied history that many civilizations have come or gone around the ability of the population to get proper nourishment and that has usually meant meat.  It is only in the last few years of mankind's existence, that we could even have this argument about eating only plants, because almost no other civilization has ever had the choice.  Since meat represents a very concentrated and complete food source, it has shown itself superior to plants in its ability to sustain mankind's populations in times of need.  There is much evidence in the evolutionary record to show that mankind may not even have evolved as a species, without hunting and the associated eating of meat.  The drive to expand our horizons comes directly from that early desire to hunt, find, kill, and eat meat.

 

I think this drive is necessary to the survival of our species and that would mean it is good for the species.  Also, diversity is very important to the human species.  If every person decided not to eat meat, then the diversity of the human species would be less and that would be bad for our species.  From the viewpoint of the human species, it is good for some to eat meat.

 

Next let us examine the question from the viewpoint of our planet. Diversity has shown to be important for the planet as well.  Many meteorite impacts in the past have destroyed countless species of animals and plants.  For the first time in the history of our planet, mankind now has the ability to stop some of these events from happening.  Surely that would be good for the planet.  I suspect that most of the true adventurers in our society like to eat meat and those people that stop the meteorites from hitting the Earth will probably have some meat eaters among them.

 

I believe that eating animals is the most ethical thing that can happen to them.  What are the choices?  They either have no existence or other animals (or plants in some cases) eat them.  Surely eating an animal so that it can nourish a human body so that person can help humanity is the highest purpose an animal's life could serve.  I am not against the people of PETA.  I strive with my entire being to be ethical to animals and so support their efforts.  If they want to eat their food while it is still alive, then I think they should be allowed to eat what they want.  I merely differ with them on what constitutes ethics and I proclaim my right to live my life in the most ethical manner that I can envision.

 

If PETA had its way and everyone stopped eating meat, it would clearly be unethical, because it would mean we had less diversity, which would be bad for animals, bad for humanity, and bad for the planet.  I would respectfully suggest that the people of PETA change their name to "Ethically Eating Animals To Uphold Morality," or EEATUM for short.  For the most part, the animals of this planet that we eat or use in some way are enhanced by their relationships to mankind and mankind is enhanced by its relationship to animals.

 

A final argument revolves around the need for humans to treat other humans ethically. Until we treat all humans ethically, I would prefer that we put most of humanities efforts into that project, rather than trying to save animals from the few humans that mistreat them.  Why don't we have PETP, or People for the Ethical Treatment of People?

 

In fairness, I am not saying that all eating of animals is good.  Obviously, if we eat an animal species into extinction, then we have broken all of the rules above.  This act would cause less diversity and would be bad for the animal species, bad for mankind, and bad for our planet.  The eating of animals must be a part of a greater understanding of the role of each species as it relates to its environment, our lives, and the health of the planet in general.

 

As we return to the case of the hog slaughter within the city limits, let us put this situation into perspective.  I think the Hispanic man had every right to practice his culture and eat meat, as he thinks it important.  There is nothing wrong with his traditions or intentions.  He probably should have been more adept at the actual slaughter.

 

I also think the neighbor had every right not to hear and see the event.  This situation represents the essence of the problem I outlined earlier.  How do we encourage diversity within our society and still live in a peaceful manner with those who have different views?  The only answer is love.  This incidence marks the interception of two different cultures that have been forced to live next to each other.  But what we all must understand is that these differences are important to the survival of our species.  We need to cherish these differences and learn to use love to bridge the gaps that separate us all.

 

As long as one person on this planet wants to eat meat, that person should have the choice.  As long as individuals meet basic standards of conduct and respect the rights of others, we should encourage as much diversity within our society as we can.  What foods and substances we put into our bodies should always remain the choice of the individual, not society.

 

 

Chapter Eleven

Saving Humanity

 

The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems. - Mahatma Gandhi –

The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching. - Assyrian Tablet, c2800 BC

 

It is obvious to me that mankind is quickly using up his resources on planet Earth and that we must use our best intelligence to solve the real problems that face us.  Many of our societies have come to cherish the appearance of reality over the reality itself.  But if we solve false problems, and not the real problems that face humanity, then we are destined to fail.  I recently heard an analogy of the Earth, comparing it to the Titanic 10 minutes before it hit the iceberg.  We seem to be arguing over who gets the nicest cabin, when in reality, we will all go down together with our ship, if she sinks.

 

To help solve these dilemmas, I have tried to identify some of the specific problems we face and I have suggested solutions to these problems.   These include the Logspaceship Project, the Asteroid Capture Project, and MOLLIE (Magnetic Orbital Launch by Levitation and Integrated Electronics).

 

The Logspaceship Project has a multi-purpose agenda.  The other projects that I have proposed will use advanced computer systems to help solve complex problems.  So the first aspect of the Logspaceship Project is to redesign the microprocessor.  Modern computers have evolved from some early designs, but the only forces that have acted on these designs have been commercial in nature.  No one has ever sat down and said, “If we wanted to design the perfect computer, and if cost were no consideration, what kind of architecture would the computer have.”

 

In the earliest days of the computer revolution, the 8080 processor from Intel and its superior counterpart the Z80 from Zilog were the microprocessors of choice.  Both of these microprocessors had a relatively straight forward design and were efficient in their operation.  The 8080 ran at 2 megahertz (2 million cycles per second), while the Z80 was introduced at 4 megahertz and later ran at the unbelievable speed of 6 megahertz.  Compared to today’s microprocessor which run at gigahertz speeds (billions of cycles per second) they were very slow. 

 

The problem in microcomputers came when IBM introduced their first Personal Computer (PC) in about 1981.  IBM didn’t really want the PC to compete with its more expensive computers and word processors so they chose the 8086 family from Intel as the main processor.  Since everyone at that time wanted to be compatible with IBM, the entire industry soon adopted this processor (and later the AMD counterparts) as their standard. 

 

The problem with this processor was that it was designed with false assumptions in mind.  In the first days of computers, the cost of human labor was insignificant in relation to the cost of the computer system.  Human beings would work all day to get a 10 to 30 minute window of opportunity to run their programs some time during the night.  Computer time was very valuable and a single computer might keep dozens of programmers working 24 hours a day to make sure that the computer system would never be idle.

 

No one understood at the time that eventually, the cost of computing power would be free and that the human labors would eventually be the big cost of computing.  So when the 8086 family was designed by Intel, the built into the processor the ability to work on more than one problem at the same time.  To accomplish this feat, they developed a page mode of addressing, rather than the direct addressing of the 8080 and Z80.  I will not go into the details here, but this paged mode of addressing memory meant that the programmer had to keep track of which “page” he was on, rather than being able to address all of the memory of the processor at the same time. 

 

This “feature” caused a lot of overhead, or extra software, because the programmer had to always keep track of the page in his program.  As time went by, each succeeding member of the X86 family (80286, 80386, etc.) had to have this feature so that it could run programs written for the older processors.   As time went on, this became a bigger and bigger burden on the program and its programmer and cost many lost hours of programming time and of the time of the processor running programs.

 

What apparently was never recognized by anyone but me, was that microprocessors would eventually be “free” and therefore new rules should be developed in the use of microprocessors.  As an example, the Z80 microprocessor can now be bought for less than $3 and has an estimated life of over 500 years.  The rule for microprocessors therefore should be one process, one processor.

 

In modern Windows computers, we essentially have the following situation.  A single processor is being asked to perform a process (or set of programs) that is moving towards infinity.  In the early days of microcomputers, I could deliver a complete working program, such as General Ledger, and the entire program could fit on a 360,000 byte diskette.  “Modern” programs often come on multiple CDs, each capable of storing 640,000,000 bytes.  The typical computer has Windows loaded on it, then many other applications and background programs that all are being run by a single processor.  Many of these programs are written by different companies and by the laws of statistics; these computers are destined to fail.  Each of you probably knows how many times you’re Windows computer has failed or “locked up,” often displaying “the blue screen of death.”  This is because the processor is trying to run programs that are ever increasing in size and complexity and the chance of making all of this perfect, is impossible.

 

The Logspaceship project would therefore implement the one-process, one-processor microcomputer architecture.  This would involve starting completely over and implementing an entire new line of microprocessors that would be designed to work together to solve the computing problems that face humanity.  This would dictate a lot of testing and redesign, but once it was finished we would then have an infinite number of computers, each working on a small defined problem, instead of one processor working on an infinite number of programs.

 

The advantages of the Logspaceship processor would be many folded.  Since each processor would be working on a small exactly defined process in its own address space, each process could be completely debugged over time so that it would never make a mistake.  This process could be called from other processors, which also would have small defined processes, so that they could become perfect in their operation.  The design would allow multiple processors to work on the same problem at the same time, and then check their results against each other to assure that the process was always completed perfectly.  With security built in from the very beginning, the overall system would be secure from outside influences and could be expected to accomplish any given task without failure or interruption.  Over time, it could truly become a perfect computing system and would be designed to last at least a thousand years.

 

This processor would be called the infinite redundant array processor (IRAP) and would eventually replace all microprocessor in existence.  All computers would eventually be a part of the same system and would have access (with any limitations desired for security or other reasons) to all computing power available in or out of this world.

 

Why is this redesign necessary?  It is necessary because many tasks require a fail proof mode.  Controlling a spaceship is just one such an example.  Who would want a spacecraft controlled by a Windows computer?  This would give the “blue screen of death” a whole new meaning.  Imagine being on the space shuttle and the computer locks up midway through the assent phase of the launch.  The pilot says to the commander, we have a computer shut down.  The commander says, “Well, reboot the computer.”  The pilot says, “OK, but it will take five minutes to reboot the computer and we will hit the water in 4 minutes.”

 

What computers do best is work very quickly and remember what they have been “taught” by their human inventors.  Thus, when any problem occurs in any major system where human life or death is involved, the computer should make the choices very quickly which will help the humans the most.

 

The story of the last crash of the Osprey aircraft is a good example.  The Osprey is an aircraft that can take off like a helicopter, with its engines and propellers rotated upward to provide lift.  Then, when the craft begins moving forward, the engines can be rotated forward, so that the aircraft flies more like a conventional airplane and can move faster than a helicopter. 

 

The aircraft was flying in “airplane” mode when a hydraulic line broke.  This caused a series of lights to come on in the cockpit.  According to the “book” the pilot was to push the reset button for the computer running the aircraft.  This alone seems insane to me.  We know that hydraulic lines are going to break and so the computer system should have been tested many times with simulations of what it should do when the problem occurs.  In the first second after the line burst, the computer should have already “known” what to do and should have instructed the human beings on what their actions should be, since the human beings can not be expected to react anywhere as near as fast as the computer itself.

 

What actually happened was somewhat different.  There was a bug in the startup software, that software that is run immediately after pushing the reset button.  This bug caused the engines to begin trying to rotate to a predefined position which was not the position the aircraft needed to fly properly.  Apparently the pilot pushed the reset button between 15 and 20 times before the aircraft hit the ground and killed everyone on board.  The Logspaceship project is designed to prevent this scenario from happening.  It is designed to produce advanced computer systems that can be made infallible and that help human beings in their time of need, rather than killing them.

 

The Logspaceship would be an actual building built here on Earth to simulate the problems of flying a spaceship with a computer system driven to perfection.  With the spaceship planted firmly on mother Earth, simulations of advanced problems could be performed without risking the “crew.” 

 

The reason I chose the name Logspaceship, is that once human beings actually begin flying in space on a regular basis, then it seems to me that wood will become one of the most valuable commodities in space.  Wood is heavy and expensive to get into space and so most spaceships will not have the luxury of wood.  Yet nothing reminds one of Earth more than the warm and interesting features of real wood.  The first Logspaceship would be firmly “grounded” and would be designed to drive the infinite redundant array computer to perfection, so that later it could power “real” spaceships and provide the safety and fail-safe features that they would need.

 

Since the Logspaceship would not have the identical problems to solve as a real spaceship moving through space, a series of “problems” would be developed that the house would have to solve on a regular basis.  These would include voice recognition, priority of commands based on the hierarchy of control of the house, and control of all systems in the house.  The house should have systems to fight fires, recognize and allow entry to all those that are supposed to be in the house, and the exclusion of anyone that should not be there.  A train-type transport system would be developed to move items throughout the house, including food, drinks, firewood, and items needed in each room such as bedding and dirty clothes removal.

 

Since the Logspaceship would be a physical building here on Earth, it would provide a testing ground for the computer system, but it would also have enough room where those working on different aspects of the system could stay and see the results of their work.  This would allow several different families the opportunity to be with the “bread winner” of the family while he/she worked on the specifics of the system.  Once the system was finished; it would be designed to run by itself for a thousand years.

 

When the computer is completely finished, and no one is needed to maintain the system, the Logspaceship would then become a home for philosophers.  Our society has come to the point where it no longer cares about philosophy and I think this is eventually bad for our society.  The Logspaceship would be designed to give philosophers a place to come and stay and think and to not have to worry about what they would eat or where they would sleep.  It would be built near forest trails so that these people could walk and think without worries.

 

The first project that would require the infinite redundant array computer would be MOLLIE or Magnetic Orbital Launch by Levitation and Integrated Electronics.  This would be one of the first steps in mankind working together to solve a large problem.

 

The greatest challenge facing our young space program is how to cheaply, easily, and reliably get into low Earth orbit.  The current solution requires large rockets which have to carry all of their fuel and oxidizer with them to make the transit from Earth to orbit.  This means that only a fraction of the weight that leaves Earth actually arrives in orbit and the per-pound cost is very high.  Thus only businesses and governments with large pocket books are allowed access to space.  This situation must change if humans are to leave their home planet and move about the solar system.

 

In the end, the best solution is to learn to manipulate the connections of gravity so that we can slowly and comfortably move into orbit.  But this solution seems unlikely to be implemented in the near future.  What can we do in the mean time using current and proven technologies?  I think the obvious answer is to build a magnetic levitation device that could impart 60% to 80% of the energies necessary to achieve Earth orbit.  The last few percentages would be provided by the on board rocket engines of the vehicles being launched.

 

A good location for the American version of MOLLIE would be the mountains of southern New Mexico near Socorro.  West of Socorro is a mountain.  West of the mountain is a high mountain plain that proceeds for many miles.  I would propose a magnetic levitation launch track that would start somewhere around Magdalena, follow the plain east until it arrives at the base of the mountain where it would travel up the mountain and terminate at the top of the mountain.  This would give a number of miles of track to accelerate spaceships to near orbital velocities, providing most of the necessary energy from ground based sources.

 

The track would be made modular.  Each module would be complete and independent, with its own super cooled magnets, power source, and the IRAP electronics.  The only difference between modules would be the programming residing in the computers of the module that tell it how and when to operate.  The entire system would be redundant, built to fail to a safe condition, and involve thousands of IRAP computers working together.

 

Each module could be powered by sunlight, wind energy, or the traditional grid system or any combination.  The amount of energy needed at any time would only involve a few modules and is not great overall.  An energy pulse would essentially move through the system, but never would all the units be on at the same time.  A possible energy combination might use solar panels to gather sunlight thereby spinning a series of wheels in an inertial energy storage system.  These systems can provide large quantities of electricity for a short period of time, which is what MOLLIE would require during the launch of a spaceship.  The modules would be interconnected, so that any module could call for power from other modules in the event of local failures.  The total amount of energy stored would always be greater than needed to allow for emergencies and situations that are outside of normal.

 

The integrated electronics are key to the success of this project.  Every module must have its own complete computer system and be capable of acting on its own, if necessary.  But every module must be in constant communication with the space ship being launched, at every stage of its acceleration to insure that the process is continuing normally.  Adjustments must be made at every step of the process to make sure of a successful launch by having all computer system constantly updating sensor information, measuring the progress of the launch, comparing this information to its preprogrammed plan, and then making adjustments so that the system insures the safety of the rocket and crew.

 

MOLLIE would be designed with flexibility in mind.  It would be adaptable to a large number of shapes, sizes, and weights of vehicles that could be launched from its platform.  This feature would encourage private companies to develop their own vehicles knowing that they could be launched from MOLLIE cheaply and that they would only have to carry about 25% of the current fuel and oxidizer loads necessary to achieve low Earth orbit. 

 

To allow them to “hook up” to MOLLIE, each craft would probably have its own super cooled magnetic system.  Since MOLLIE would also have a super cooled magnetic system, this would allow the rocket and its launcher to have a firm “grip” during their short time together.  If my calculations are correct, MOLLIE could accelerate a vehicle at 4 or 5 G’s for about 100 seconds and impart the necessary velocities to the space ship and its cargo.  Multiple launches per day could easily be achieved, with electrical energy being the only restraint in how many vehicles could take off in any one day.

 

One problem that might surface is the greater air resistance near the Earth’s surface that the accelerating vehicle would experience.  Most vehicles that would be launched by MOLLIE would also have to return to Earth from orbit, so they would already have to face the high heat of reentry.  But MOLLIE would operate so quickly, there would be very little time for heat to build up.  Thus, I think that many vehicles could be launched from MOLLIE without concern for the thicker atmosphere near the Earth.  If heat did become a problem, there may be several ways to help the situation.  One way might involve the use of acoustics to develop a vacuum in front of the vehicle, so that in essence, the space ship would fly up the back end of a lightning bolt, using a vacuum to protect the space ship from the heat that would normally be caused by friction with the atmosphere.

 

For each vehicle to be launched on MOLLIE, a profile would be developed that contained all the information the IRAP system would need to watch over the launch.  The vehicle type, flying characteristics, weight, cargo, and any other pertinent information would be retained in the system.  As the launch is progressing through each of the modules, the system would analyze the real results and compare it with the projected results.  That way, each module will help make the corrections necessary during each launch so that the varied systems can work together to keep catastrophic problems from occurring.

 

Fail safes would be developed all the way through the system.  Multiple redundant processors would ensure the integrity of the sensor data and calculations made during the launch.  Interlinking of power modules and the ability to transfer power from any module to any other module in real time would insure that adequate power would be available all the way through the launch.  Each spacecraft launched would set its controls so that any failure between the systems would cause them to “fly away” from each other. The magnetic link would be instantly aborted so the launch vehicle could then fly back on its own to a nearby runway.  

 

The system would constantly measure set points, where certain actions become possible or not possible.  One example would be the point on the track where it could no longer bring the launch vehicle to a safe stop on the track, in the event of some catastrophic failure of the space ship during launch.  For many emergencies, the track would be able to bring the launch vehicle to a complete stop on the track, and then move it back to the beginning point for further work.  If the craft had already passed this mid point, then the track would no longer be able to stop the vehicle before it reached the end of the track.  However, all possible scenarios would be rehearsed over and over by the computer systems, so that in actual launches, the system itself would be in charge and would make every go/no go decision.  Human beings can not react fast enough to make these decisions in real time, while this is one of the best characteristics of properly designed computer systems.

 

I am not an artist so I can’t show you what MOLLIE looks like in my mind, but you can paint a picture of it in your mind.  Start near Magdalena, New Mexico and draw a track sitting on concrete stands continuing all the way to the base of the mountain.  You should have it curve gently upward at the mountain base and the end of the track should be at the top of the mountain pointing up and to the east.

 

Individual crafts would have different abilities to manipulate themselves once they leave the end of the track by using their onboard propulsion systems.  The track itself should show repeating modules that each look identical.  There would be a greater concentration of modules at both ends, since the craft might be running very slowly near the ends, due to launch or problems with a launch.  You should see acres of solar panels lining both sides along the entire route, soaking up sunlight to change it into orbital velocities.  There might be a little “house” beside each module that houses the rotating wheels of the inertia energy storage system.  The magnets would be super cooled and would rest atop each of the concrete piers. 

 

Can you imagine a ride on this orbital launch system?  You would strap yourself into your seat with your belt and wait for the countdown.  At zero there would be an immediate but gentle pressure as the system would quickly ramp up to 3, 4, 5, or 6 G’s, depending upon the craft and its cargo and the requirements of the flight.  The rush would be tremendous as the craft would just keep accelerating as you head for orbit.  Depending upon the launch vehicle, it would ignite its rocket engine some where along the track.  Each engine would start on the track, so that the system might have the chance to measure the force of the engine and compare it to what was projected.  This would allow the rocket engines to completely come up to power and to be checked out before the track would release the craft to Earth orbital insertion.  Non explosive engines like those that Burt Rutan is using in his craft would be required, because an engine explosion could kill people and damage the track, making it far less useful. 

 

MOLLIE could also be used for intercontinental travel.  A jet/rocket, or some other concept, could be developed to allow people to travel from one continent to another in a very short period of time.  The launch would be pretty much the same, except that the craft would not try for orbit.  It would just coast through a hyperbolic curve and land with the help of jet engines when it arrives a few minutes later at its destination.  Socorro Space Port does have a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?

 

Magdalena is an old mining town.  There used to be a railway that runs to it.  This is important, because any real space port would be transporting tons of material to space on a daily or weekly basis.  Therefore you would need rail access to the launch site to move freight to the take-off point.  The space crafts themselves might even be transported to Magdalena via rail, but a runway may also be needed nearby to service returning space transports and incoming cargo and passenger jets.

 

With an easy way to get tonnage to orbit, specialized craft could then be developed that would stay in space and never come back to Earth.  These could be much like tug boats that would carry either cargo or people from one point in space to another.  Once one gets to low Earth orbit, it is not too hard to get to any other place in space, like the moon, Mars, or any of the L points that will become increasing important to science and our understanding of our cosmos. 

 

As many atomic bombs as we have, I think we should consider the Orion Project again.  It would use the “extra” atomic bombs on Earth to propel spacecraft through space and it turns out to be one of the most feasible and economical ways to move about the solar system.  It alone could open up tourist travel to Mars, making the trip in weeks, not months or years.  And keeping its operation above Earth’s atmosphere would insure it didn’t pollute as it ignites atomic bomb after atomic bomb propelling itself to Mars and beyond.  MOLLIE would make it safe to transport nuclear material to orbit and all the radiation from the blasts would hardly be noticed in space.

 

Let’s work together as a species and build MOLLIE so we can take our rightful place in space.

 

The next project I would propose is the Asteroid Capture Project.  To implement this system successfully, it would require the use of the infinite redundant array computer and MOLLIE.

 

The Asteroid Capture Project represents my challenge to mankind to begin working together as a species to solve the real problems that face humanity.  I would propose a thirty year project to map, study, control, and retrieve one or more large asteroids into lunar orbit or high Earth orbit to be used as a source of materials as well as a platform of space travel and human use.

 

This project would be beneficial to mankind for many reasons. First, to insure our own continued existence, we need to control our solar system so that "accidents" do not happen when it comes to impacts into our planet by stray asteroids. Second, the amount of metals in a large nickel-iron asteroid would be very large. These metals represent a lot of value and this project could be undertaken as a commercial project to mine these minerals from the asteroid once it is captured. Third, this project could be used to encourage all human beings to work together for a common cause. And fourth, the project would eventually end in another place that mankind could visit, thus stimulating the birth and growth of commercial travel in space.

 

Once in orbit, the asteroid could be mined from the inside out, creating valuable metals that would not have to be lifted from Earth. Then the space created by the mining could be modified to allow human habitation. Thus we could soon have a motel in space, a city in space, a retirement center in space, an amusement park in space, and anything else we could think of that would exploit the resources of the asteroid.

 

This project would involve great risk, but mankind could control all aspects of the success and surely our best people could bring this project to completion without harming the planet Earth. One of the most important lessons in life is when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade. We live in a solar system that is full of asteroids, each of which is on a different orbit and each of which could, at some point in the future, crash into Earth and thus destroy much of the life that exists on the planet.

 

Mankind has risen to a position of awareness of the world around us and must assume the responsibility to control our solar system in an effort to preserve the life that now exists. The dinosaurs had no choice in the matter when a wayward asteroid crashed into the Earth and caused the extinction of most of the life on the planet. Mankind now has the awareness and the ability to assure that this does not happen again. It would be the height of irresponsibility of mankind to NOT solve this problem.  If mankind allows itself to be exterminated by a wayward asteroid, then we wouldn't be any smarter than the dinosaurs.

 

The overall plan would start with a mapping of all objects in the solar system that are large enough to "hurt" our planet if they were to come under the gravitational influence of our planet and crash into the Earth at some point in the future. The mapping project would then be supplemented by actual visits by spacecraft to a number of asteroids in an effort to learn their composition and structure.

 

As far as the technique used to capture asteroids, I would propose that we first develop and then manufacture and launch a series of robot spacecraft that would be used to move these large rocks in space. NASA would probably develop the initial design and then businesses around the world could reproduce the design and send them to the chosen asteroid. Each company would be paid a percentage of the rewards based on the percentage of useful robot craft that participated in the recovery effort. Each craft would be fully self-contained and capable of working with a number of other units as a single whole. Each craft would have enough IRAP computing power to do the entire project and would have the ability to communicate with every other craft involved in the project. If a hundred craft were needed to move a certain sized asteroid, then at least two hundred would be sent to allow for things to go wrong and to ensure the success of the project.

 

Each craft would have to have several features to make it work. Each would have to have sufficient computing power to accomplish the task with as little help from Earth as possible. Each would have to be able to attach itself to the asteroid by some mechanism. Each would have to be able to generate the necessary fuel for the movement of the rock from the asteroid itself. And each would have to provide thrust at the right time and in the right direction to change the orbit of the asteroid in a controlled manner.

 

One problem the robotic units would face would be in capturing enough energy to make fuel or attach itself to the asteroid. One possible solution requires us to consider the fact that many asteroids travel very close to the sun in parts of their orbit. At these times, immense amounts of energy would be available. The robots might be able to attach themselves by melting a small portion of the asteroid so that the robot could insert an anchor of some type. Also, if the fuel needed to power the robots turned out to be hydrogen, as an example, then the great energy at the time of near sun orbit could fuel the collection and storage of the hydrogen in preparation for its eventual use to move the asteroid. Remember that we would have time to practice many moves before we actually brought something close to the Earth.

 

The importance of this project is many folded. The capture of the first asteroid would be akin to mankind saying "We are taking charge of this solar system and will do our best to make sure that mankind continues to inhabit it." It is important for the countries and companies of the world to work together on common goals, since we all live on the same planet. Although the Frass Meteorite seems to indicate that life is prevalent in the cosmos, intelligent life may be very rare. The sequence of events that led to our rise to awareness seems to be extraordinarily fortunate. If this is the case then mankind may be a rare example of life becoming aware of itself and thus we would be all the more precious. We must protect ourselves, work together, and gain control of our environment to the best of our abilities.

 

In the early 1960's, NASA tested nuclear rocket engines, some of which had the "horsepower" of Hoover Dam.  With these engines in space, mankind could control the asteroids and potentially explore the solar system.  For some reason, humanity has decided to NOT build nuclear rocket engines, but TO build nuclear weapons.  It would be my goal for mankind to take all of the nuclear weapons and convert them into fuel for nuclear rocket engines or send them to space to be used by Orion type vehicles.  On Earth, nuclear reactors represent a hazard.  In space they represent an opportunity.  We must seize the moment and again construct and test nuclear rocket engines.  We must also research any and all other methods of propulsion.  I believe the very life of our species depends on our ability to control the space of our solar system and this control will be directly proportional to the quality of our rocket engines and our ability to move large amounts of people and materials into space.  After all, if we don’t learn to leave this planet, then this is certainly the planet where mankind will end its existence.

 

When human beings work together, there is no problem we can not solve.  But when we fight each other, we just waste our precious energies and decrease the chance of survival of our species.

 

One problem we could easily solve is to supply affordable renewable energy to the people of planet Earth.  Harry Braun has proposed a method of transitioning to a hydrogen economy within a ten year period and I can find no fault in his reasoning.  He proposes we change all current engines and power plants to use hydrogen and then begin making hydrogen from the ocean through the use of solar energy wind farms.  Automobile factories would be converted to make millions of electric windmills, whose electricity could be used to separate the hydrogen in sea water from its oxygen, thereby supplying the energy that America would need to continue our economy.  More information can be found at http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/.

 

It’s not enough to just solve the problems of America and its insatiable desire for energy.  Every human being on the planet deserves to have renewable energy that meets their needs but doesn’t harm their environment.  All economically affluent countries should begin the task of providing solar energy independence to all developing nations.  There is no need for developing countries to even go through a hydrocarbon fuel stage when we could provide inexpensive solar energy to all people.  This would eliminate their need to burn trees and other fossil fuels, but more importantly, if all human beings had the energy they needed, there would be one less reason for nations and peoples to make war against each other.

 

Small villages could easily have installed simple systems that would tend to work a long time with little maintenance costs.  New low cost, high efficiency solar electric panels could easily pump water and supply electric energy.  When the wind is blowing, windmills could be used to take some of this water and split off its hydrogen, supplying fuel to the village.  Variations on this system could be developed to solve the needs of many different societies. 

 

Surely the terrorism of the world would be reduced if all humans had the basic rights of any civilized planet.  These rights would include the right to have enough food to eat, a chance to become educated in a complicated world, the right to have enough energy to meet basic needs, and the right to pursue one’s happiness in any way that doesn’t breach the happiness of others.  We can not call ourselves civilized until we meet these goals for every human being that exists on our small planet.

 

We must examine the role that capitalism plays in our society.  There is no doubt in my mind that a small mom and pop business, where there is moral direction and efficient competition, is good for the family and for our society.  But on the other hand, as corporations become larger and have more control over the government, then the only measure of success becomes money and money can’t be the final arbiter of right and wrong.  Our societies and civilization must come to value the freedoms of the individual, the economies and false economies of scale, the value of living in harmony with nature, and some acceptable level of quality of life for all.  Currently many big businesses don’t share these same values and in many ways are not serving humanity.

 

Chapter Twelve

My Life

 

I am always doing things I can't do, that's how I get to do them. -Pablo Picasso

 

When I was little, about the time I first entered school, there were two events that changed my life.

 

The first event occurred one day during the autumn after I entered the first grade.  My teacher had decided to teach us about stars that day and she said that they were suns like our very own, except they were very far away and that was the reason they looked so small.  I don’t remember what else she taught us that day. But I came away from the event thinking that if all the stars were like our own, then they must have planets around them and they must have people much like us living on those planets.

 

In the early 1950’s, we lived on the edge of Amarillo, Texas and there was not yet any street lights in our neighborhood.  In those days, families only had one car, if they were lucky, and so it came time for us to go get my father at work.  We were part owners of a small grocery store and we never had much money, but we always had something to eat.  Some nights my father would drive the “company” delivery van home from the store, but on this night, my mother and I went to get my father.

 

We picked up my dad and he sat in the front seat, across from my mother who drove the whole way.  When we got home, I was sitting behind my dad and got out of the car on the right-hand side.  I proceeded around the back of the car and as I got to the back, I had to stop and look up at the stars.

 

I don’t know if you have ever been to Texas in the 1950’s, but in those days, without the street lights, the stars were so thick that it looked like you could reach up and grab a handful.  It was a cold autumn night and the sky was perfectly clear and the Milky Way was strung out before me with stars on every side.

 

As I stopped behind the car and looked up at the stars, my mother had just got out from behind the steering wheel and I just asked her, “How far do they go?”  She looked up at the stars where I was pointing and she said, “Oh, they go on forever.”

 

The current view of cosmology has us living in a finite cosmos, where there is an edge and thus a limit to how far the stars might actually go.  With all the science that has preceded the cosmologist of today, one would think they would have to be correct in their models, but I still think my mother was right and the cosmologists of our time are wrong.  It is much harder for me to imagine a limit to the cosmos than to imagine that it goes on forever.  If you have followed my arguments in the cosmology section, then I hope that you will agree with me.  I’ve often wondered how Christians can believe in an infinite God, yet think his creation would be less.

 

The next event that occurred shortly after the events described above was the day my mother sat me down and told me that I was a Christian.  She said that Christians read their Bible every day and prayed for those things that are important and for those things that they want (need).

 

Being a young child, I had no idea what was important, so I just prayed that God would let me do something important.  But I clearly knew what I wanted.  I wanted a piece of a star.  Being young, I couldn’t imagine how I could ever go to the stars to get a piece, so each night of my entire childhood, I prayed that God would send me a piece of space.  That might not be entirely the right way to say it, but that was the prayer that I prayed every night for many years of my life.  I started in the first grade and probably stopped sometime while in high school.  I had no idea that God would actually send me a piece of Mars and that it would clearly show that Mars is alive, but the prayer was clearly answered.

 

Since my mother had told me to read my Bible every night, I followed her advice and read at least a few passages every night.  By the time I had reached high school, I had read the Bible cover to cover four times.

 

One thing that I noticed was that the Bible talked about miracles that had occurred in the past.  I never asked God about this, but I always wondered if miracles still occur in today’s world, or did they just occur when Jesus was alive.

 

The instant that I saw the meteorite on my great aunt’s ranch, my very first thought was that God does answer prayers and that miracles do still occur.  If you have followed my description of the Frass Meteorite, then you must accept it as a miracle.  It was a miracle that lava could flow as recent as 13 million years ago on Mars and capture such a perfect little sample of the life of Mars.  It was a miracle that this rock could form in a place that would have land, sea, and air creatures.  It was a miracle that the rock could be ejected from Mars without being damaged.  It was a miracle that the rock could make its way through the space between Mars and Earth carrying a cargo of life.  It was a miracle that the structure and composition of the rock was such that it could survive a fiery trip through our Earth’s atmosphere.  It was a miracle that the rock I had prayed for as a child would land within two miles of where I was sleeping and within 15 miles of where I was born.  If it had been any closer, it would have hit me in the head.

 

At this point in my life, I would have to be crazy to not believe in God or miracles, having had my prayers answered in such a real way.  Whether one does or does not believe in God or miracles, prayer still has a positive effect on human life since it organizes and directs your subconscious as to which direction you want your life to go. 

 

The next major event that completely changed my life was the death of my son, Aaron. 

 

As the year 2000 approached, I was living in Texas (some think that is an oxymoron).  I knew I would never find the people there that would be willing to talk about gravity or the life of Mars and I knew I needed to go somewhere else.  But I had no idea where to go, so I just began walking.  My path took me south and I soon ended up in Socorro, New Mexico. 

 

I stopped there once I realized the Very Large Array Telescope was run from that location and I thought that maybe I could talk to the scientists at the university there.  I’ve never in my life run into such a group of people that were so overcome by their own importance.  These are the people that define the ivory tower syndrome. Many of them thought that they were far better than the mostly Hispanic population that was indigenous to the region.  But the poor Hispanic people treated me far better than any scientist I met in Socorro.

 

One day I walked into the headquarters from which they ran the VLA telescope.  I asked if I could talk to their cosmologist, because it seemed to me the cosmos was infinite and if they were making all their models based on the single big bang/ single expanding universe/ finite cosmos model, then maybe there were some problems with their assumptions.  I was told to leave and that they had no cosmologists at the site.  I thought this strange, since all their models of science revolved around cosmology models and I didn’t understand how they could study something without the proper models.  To this day, I guess they still don’t have a cosmologist and much of the work this telescope has done will have to be evaluated again, once an infinite model is accepted.

 

In order to try to meet people at the university, I enrolled in a metal working class.  I was allowed to work with all kinds of stones and with titanium, which has always fascinated me.  My teacher was very kind to me and helped me in many ways, although she too was an outcast from the university because she was different.  In order to save money, I camped near the Rio Grande and walked into town each day. 

 

Many times I was hungry and didn’t have enough to eat.  The week before Easter that year, I went the entire week without any food.  Up until that time, I had prayed for my son Aaron, because I knew he was having a tough time in life.  I had talked to him on the phone the week before and he told me that his girlfriend was pregnant.  I prayed for him by connecting gravitationally with him each night and giving him energy to make it through another day.  But during the week without food, I became too weak to send him energy.  Then, on April 7th of the year 2000, I was laying awake in my tent when a halo light came into my tent and stayed long enough for me sit up and look at it.  I was used to seeing car lights shining from the distance as people turned on the roads and their headlights would shine in my tent.  This was not the same and was different than anything I had ever witnessed in my life.

 

My only thought was to go back to my readings of the Bible when an angel had come to Jesus the night before he was crucified.  The angel came to give him strength in his time of trouble and all I could think was that an angel had visited me to give me strength for what was to come.

 

Early Saturday morning, a policeman with a loud speaker called me to come out and meet with him.  When I came out, he said that I should call home for an emergency.  When I called home, I found that my son had died from a very strange accident.  I’ve always wondered if my lack of prayers that last week was what had allowed him to die.

 

As a philosopher, I was used to thinking about all the different ways to look at a problem.  But when your son dies, no matter how you look at the problem, he is still dead.  My son, all through his childhood, had told me that he saw lights that would come into his room.  I never believed him thinking it was only the imagination of a child.  But once I saw my “light” I realized that he had probably seen something and it was only my lack of experience that kept me from believing him.  When your children tell you about their experiences, never take them for granted and try to understand that they may see more than you do.  Youth often report “paranormal” events, but many of these may be normal and children can often see more than adults because their minds have not become so set in their ways. 

 

I have learned from this experience to respect everything that others tell me.  Each of us has our own viewpoint of reality and all viewpoints have some validity.  It is important in life and in science to always keep one’s mind open.  A true scientist is one who balances their skepticism with their open mind.  One without the other makes us unbalanced and limits our ability to find the truth.

 

The one additional event that changed my life forever was the time I spent in Viet Nam during the year 1968.  I volunteered for the U.S. Marine Corps the summer after completing high school.  In those days, you either volunteered or you tried to get an exemption by going to college.  I knew that I wasn’t ready for college and I had been taught to value my country and the constitution that protected us all and kept us free. 

 

The Marine Corps, in all of its wisdom, decided that I should play the clarinet in one of the 13 Marine Corps bands that existed at the time.  I went to my first duty station at Quantico, Virginia and spent a few months thinking about the world.  I felt a deep sense that I wasn’t doing anything important and I wanted to try to understand what life really meant.  So I volunteered for duty in Viet Nam and was transferred there shortly thereafter.

 

When I went to Viet Nam, I could have been described as a “tea-toddler,” or one who didn’t drink or partake in any mind altering substance.  As I watched my compatriots in the band and other groups, I noticed that many came to Viet Nam in the same condition, but the horrors of war and not knowing if one would live through the next day, had changed many or most of these people.  There seemed to be two groups of people; those that drank and those that smoked pot or marijuana. 

 

I resisted both groups until the day before my 21st birthday.  At that point in time, the band was on “tour” and had gone to Okinawa for five weeks and then on to Japan for one week.   In Viet Nam, we played for our own troops but we also played for the Vietnamese including orphans and schools.  But on tour we only played for the troops stationed in Okinawa and Japan.

 

The night before my birthday, my best friend offered me a “joint,” as he had on many other occasions.  Always before, I had resisted because I had no intention of escaping from anything.  But for some reason, that night, I accepted and my life was forever changed.  I learned that far from escaping, the smoke had given me a different perspective and it made me feel good.  From that time on, I smoked every night for the rest of my stay in Viet Nam.  It was very common there and even our commanding officer once told us that he knew what was going on, but if we would just be cool about it, nothing would happen to us.  It seemed a better way of relieving tension than to drink alcohol which left one completely unable to work or respond to danger.

 

The night before I left Viet Nam, our sources told us that a “bust” was on for that night.  We cleaned up the area where we smoked and made sure nothing illegal was there.  When we wanted a smoke, we would just get a single joint and then smoke it to completion.  The place where we smoked was beautiful.  We sat under one of the huts, which was on the mountain overlooking DaNang and the South China Sea.  As we finished our joint, a couple of the enlisted staff burst in and said we were busted.  Since we didn’t have anything with us, they couldn’t press charges and nothing ever came of the event.  The remarkable thing to me was the fact that I could “maintain” while under the influence.  No one could tell if I had smoked or not by my actions, since I had learned to use the smoke as a kind of brain exercise.

 

When I returned home from Viet Nam, pot was almost impossible to find, but I smoked it when I could find it.  As the years went by, I continued to smoke for periods and then quit for periods.  I smoked all the way through my college education where I got my first degree in three years while working up to forty hours a week the last year.  I maintained a high grade point average, even though I smoked the entire time.   After graduating, I quit for a number of years, as the morality of the situation seemed a problem.

 

Later I went to electronics school where I graduated the two year course in one year with a perfect average.  Again, I smoked the entire time I was in this school, so obviously the smoking did not affect my performance or memory.  After electronics school, I formed a computer company and started a family.  One thing that I noticed was that I would work on logical computer problems during the day, and often times I wouldn’t be able to solve a particular problem.  Then when I went home that night and smoked a little bit, usually the solution to the problem would come into my mind within ten minutes.  This seemed like a benefit to me and society and I continued to fight the morality question.

 

As my children grew older and were reaching the age where they could remember my actions, I decided that I couldn’t continue smoking in front of them.  How could I tell them to say “No” to drugs, yet smoke pot in their presence?  My wife and I disagreed violently over this issue and a divorce ensued because of this and other reasons.  I didn’t smoke for the next five or six years, mostly to set an example for my kids.  But the morality of the issue continued to haunt me as I realized I was not creative when I didn’t smoke.

 

Only after both my children began to smoke did I again take up the “habit.”  In 1992, I saw an issue of “Discovery Magazine” with an article that proclaimed there was a “Crisis in the Cosmos.”   When I was at Texas Tech, I thought I had discovered the problems in Einstein’s work, but there was no proof or evidence that I was correct.  I only had philosophical arguments and I knew how hard it would be to propose a new model of science, so I just kept quiet.  But I always kept in my mind the prospect of looking for evidence that I was correct.  One of the things that I had predicted was that big bangs would come from black holes that grew too large to hold the energy.  If this was true, then there would be evidence of more than one big bang.  The article gave me the evidence that I needed and the birth of gravionics began again.

 

My processes were always the same.  I would take a question that bothered me and walk in nature.  After I would get tired from walking, I would smoke a little bit and the answers began coming in droves, just as they had while working on computer problems.  Within a single week, I had the basic gravionics model developed and over the next few years I never stopped working on the problem.  I continued to refine the model of reality until this very day.

 

The question of morality continued to haunt me.  If I could solve problems that no one else could solve and I could do it by smoking pot and therefore increasing my imagination and decreasing my inhibitions, wasn’t that good?  Yet I would still refuse to smoke in the presence of children because I had no desire for anyone else to take the path that I had taken.  Where was the truth in this dilemma?

 

The answer finally lay in spirituality as I further developed the model to include human beings and the energy of the human spirit.  I came to understand that good or bad can only be in the actions of a sentient being.  No drug can be good or bad on its own.  It is only how it is used that makes it good or bad.  And good or bad relates to the survival of a species more than the survival of an individual.  Even if smoking was bad for me as an individual, but was good for the survival of the species, then it was good rather than bad.

 

Now the objective evidence indicates that smoking pot is not bad for the individual or the society.  I’ve seen so many people that have used pot in a responsible way to improve their life and happiness.  The only problem with it is that it is presently illegal and therefore the market value is unnaturally increased.  If it were legal, then many people could grow their own “medicine” and would not have to purchase it from the pharmaceutical companies, which make huge profits selling all mixtures of drugs to unsuspecting individuals.  The interactions of these drugs have never been tested and drugs are said to be “effective” if only 51% of the people respond in a positive way.

 

Under E=gmc2, the energy of any real system is stored in both the mass and the gravity.  What happens when a person ingests a hallucinogenic drug, such as marijuana?  Under gravionics, energy is transferred from the mass into the gravitational system, where the spirit lies.  This means that this plant is truly a spirit herb, since it increases the energy of the human spirit.  That is why one gets “high.”  That is also why people get hungry when they smoke.  The energy is taken from the mass and the mass calls for more energy in the form of food.

 

Now we have millions of people in jail, where they can’t be constructive to society and the only reason they are in jail is because they chose their own medicine, which happened to be illegal.  Anyone that knows the history of the world and of our country knows that pot was used by almost every civilization and is the oldest know drug that benefits societies.  By all accounts, George Washington both grew and smoked marijuana and farmers were required by law, until the 1930’s, to grow hemp for rope making.   The objective evidence now shows that many of the problems our society faces could be solved if marijuana was just made legal and used to its full benefit for mankind.

 

The Bible says that all plants and animals were given to man to do with as he pleased.  If marijuana were legal, then it could quickly replace almost every forest product grown.  It makes a better paper than wood products, is renewable on a yearly basis, and grows faster than almost any other plant.  Its oil is useful for human consumption as well as making a fine fuel oil, derived from natural and renewable sources.  And as a medicine, it is already known to be useful in a great number of situations and diseases, including glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, pain relief, arthritis, and helping people to sleep.

 

If we are to survive as a species, we must start facing the truth and solving the real problems that face humanity.  As a society and species, we now seem more interested in the appearance of reality, rather than the reality itself.  Every day we hear on the TV and radio that we should have a drug free society.  Yet what would we do without aspirin?  The truth is that we don’t want a drug free society.  What we want is a society that uses drugs in a responsible way.  I would make the observation that the only one that can make that decision is the individual person; since they are the only one that can know how any particular drug affects them.

 

We are led to believe by modern science that all humans are exactly alike.  Gravionics shows that we are all similar, but each human being is a different experiment in chemistry.  Each of us reacts to different drugs (and even foods and supplements) in different ways.  A doctor can help us determine what might be useful for our own individual requirements, but in the end, we must each accept the responsibility to control things we put into our bodies so that we benefit ourselves, humanity and society.  The truth is that no doctor, no lawyer, no judge, no senator, no congressman, or president can know how any particular drug will affect any particular individual.

 

The use of marijuana for recreational purposes brings another argument into question.  The preamble to the constitution that I went to Viet Nam to defend clearly states that we each have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.  Why has it become against the law to pursue one’s happiness, wherever that might lead us?  As long as my actions don’t impact on the happiness of others, what right has society to keep me from pursuing my happiness?  If I can solve the problems that Einstein couldn’t solve, then I would propose that that is a valuable pursuit of happiness and benefits society and doesn’t harm society in any way.  The smoking of marijuana is one of the most benign examples of drug use in our society and far more damage comes from alcohol and cigarettes, both of which are dangerous and addicting drugs.   Marijuana has neither of these characteristics.

 

As I said earlier, my life has been changed by my visit to Viet Nam.   I later learned that the war was unnecessary, illegal, and immoral.  It seems that generals don’t have much to do if there is not a war, so they created one.  I thought I was fighting for my country and the constitution that made our country great.  It never occurred to me that I had been lied to and my sacrifices were for naught.  Society put me in a situation that was impossible for me to deal with and I coped by smoking pot.  Then when I came home, my actions were illegal and I could not pursue my happiness, except under the cover of darkness.  I was trusted in Viet Nam to carry an M-16 rifle but my country can’t trust me to smoke pot in a responsible manner.  This is wrong and must be changed if our species is to survive on this little blue world.

 

Believe in miracles, for only those who dream of the impossible can ever accomplish it.  μmike

 

Summary of Principles

 

Assumption #1: There is a reality.

 

Assumption #2: We can know reality.

 

Assumption#3: Reality is the same throughout the Cosmos

 

Principle#1: Reality (or existence for any universe) requires identity and relationship.

 

Corollary #1: Reality is composed of energy which represents itself as mass and gravity.

 

Corollary #2: Gravity is the one and only force necessary to "hold" mass together.

 

Corollary #3: Gravity is represented by individual connections of gravity called gravions.

 

Corollary #4: All energy in the real world transfers through gravions.

 

Corollary #5: The distribution of energy in any real system is represented by the equation E=gmc2.

 

Corollary #6 No two masses can occupy the same space.

 

Principle #2: Any coordinate system must define itself faster than the fastest thing which moves within the system.

 

Corollary #1 Gravions propagate, connect, and disconnect at the speed of gravity.

 

Corollary #2  The speed of gravity is c2

 

Principle #3: Reality is infinite.

 

Corollary #1: All parts of nature cycle.

 

Definitions

 

Definition #1: Energy is defined as the substance of the cosmos.

 

Definition #2: Mass is defined as that part of the energy of the cosmos which represents identity.

 

Definition #3: Gravity is defined as that part of the energy of the cosmos which represents relationship.

 

Definition #4:  Gravions are defined as the connections of gravity.

 

Definition #5: Reality is defined as all mass and the associated connections of gravions and all energy which is stored or moved within those systems.

 

Definition #6: Space is defined as the accumulated connections of gravions.

 

Definition #7: Time is defined as the changing of gravions.

 

Definition #8: Life is defined as those physical systems which use gravions to store information about reality.

 

Definition #9: Love is defined as the actions of a sentient being whereby they give more energy than they take, and they make more connections of gravity than they break.

 

Definition #10:  Spirituality is defined as the actions between sentient beings where all energy transfers are positive and loving.

 

Definition #11:  C equals the speed of light – A cosmic constant.

 

Definition #12:  C2 equals the speed of gravity – A cosmic constant.

 

Definition #13:  God is defined as the progression towards order.

 

Definition #14:  Real events are defined as those events that have connections of gravity and exchanges of energy.

 

Definition #15: The truth is defined as the real (not the perceived) connections of gravity.

 

Definition #16:  A miracle is defined as those real events where the infinite possibilities overcome the finite probabilities.

 

Definition #17:  A universe is defined as those physical systems which orbit around a common center.

 

Definition #18:  The cosmos is defined as all that exists.

 

Infinite Child

 

Great minds have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

 

Dedicated to my son, Michael Aaron Moore

July 3, 1980 – April 29, 2000

 

 

An infinite cosmos, I once did seek,

Into the vastness I tried to peek.

I looked as far as eye could see,

And found a special star for me.

 

I want to travel to this star,

That looks from here to be so far.

So how does someone make this trip,

Without the benefit of train or ship?

 

The mind's eye is the place to go,

When trips abroad are way to slow.

I go there often and visit long,

To make me happy and keep me strong.

 

Now if an infinite cosmos you would see,

Then close your eyes and come with me.

Take all the time that you would spend,

'Cause an infinite cosmos never ends.