I have inserted my comments among yours so that you will know which question I am answering. My only reservation is wondering what good it does me to explain these things to you. If I convince you of the value of my model, so what? If I could spend a few hours or a few days with you, I have no doubt that I could answer most of your questions to your satisfaction. But would that help me get my model accepted by science? I don't know. If I could talk to Steven Hawking for a day or two, I could answer most of his questions, but would that help me? I don't know. But I care about everyone out there, and your questions are exactly the kind that should be asked, so move down for more comments.

I thank you for your help on my web page. I have spent the last 20 years doing computer designs and I am getting very bored with that line of thought. I have put up a web site in order to help the transfer of info, but most of my time must be used in thinking of time and space, so it is very hard for me to think about computers and web sites. Also, this is the first time that I have been a computer user and got to use long file names, so maybe I just went wild.

I agree with everything you say in the preceding paragraph. As long as you talk of ideas, you can't hurt me. I am a human being and if you start calling me names because I have a different model of physical systems, that might hurt me, but has nothing to do with science. I want you and every other person out there to ask every hard question that you can. I have basically answered within my own mind, every problem that I can anticipate, but what you say is true in that the global mind must test my model with every open and logical thought that can be applied to better understand the world around us. The gravionic model has been formed with every question you ask in mind. If this new model couldn't hold up to an "attack" by outsiders, I would never have presented it. Thus I have thought much of your questions, long before you asked them. Not all the answers can be presented now, because I am the only one thinking along these lines. However, once my model begins receiving more reviews like your own, we will begin to get the answers we seek. So for now, I am presenting my best guesses at certain things I believe are true, yet any scientist must always review their assumptions and the associated logic, over and over to make sure that the truth is found.

I think that almost every major issue facing science today can be resolved by looking at the assumptions that led to the logic of each model. To better understand your questions, let us look at the assumptions which I believe are wrong. First of all, all of the problems you state, revolve around the assumption of a finite cosmos. All of the current theories of cosmology are philosophically unsupportable. The assumption of an expanding universe, only comes from thinking of the cosmos as finite. In an infinite cosmos, material would be expanding in every direction. I don't have fancy supercomputers to model these kind of things, so I use my own mind. I have been modeling computer systems in my mind for years and I can always predict the performance of any system from these models. When I model an infinite cosmos, sending material in every direction, I get just what we are seeing today. What we are seeing is things rushing in all directions.

My model describes our galaxy and all the galaxies that are rushing with us as "our" universe. These galaxies are not flying apart. A universe under my model refers to material that has a common BBE origin. If you look at these galaxies, what you see is that they are flying at an "angle" to the last big bang. This is all conjecture at this point, but it looks to me like this material was "orbiting" the last big bang when it went off. Now my model shows the resulting "explosion" doesn't not actually cause anything to expand. I believe that the energy leaves the event at the speed of C^2 and is in sub space or "unreal space" or whatever. But the energy leaving the Event has no physical effect on systems around it, except for the sudden decrease in local gravity. This energy can effect nothing in the real world until the energy again enters the real world as energy "cooled" to mass and gravity, and then that particle must begin making connections of gravity to actually exist in the universe in question.

Now all of the different big bangs, would contribute to our local background radiation. But most of these are so far away or so long ago, that the limits of the cosmos keep us from seeing that energy. Light has a limit and gravity has a limit. So the homogeneity that we see is based only on our local viewpoint, since the limits of nature keep us from ever seeing the whole cosmos from any one location.

I will save most of my response for 2a, but I don't agree that everything we see is rushing away from us. Again, many of the galaxies near us are on the same course that we are. All of our methods of measuring distance and motion are based on lots of assumptions and I think the breakdown will again lie in the assumptions. My model shows that for energy to be used, a connection of gravity must be made. Thus I think that the red shift is more a measure of how many gravitational systems have been traversed. We have measured the distance and motion of a few things, but most of the heavens have not been measured. As an example, take the experiment done recently by the Hubble, where they pointed the telescope to a "black" portion of the sky and left it there for ten days. What did they find? They found more fully formed galaxies that we didn't even know existed. Now what is the motion of those galaxies? I would claim that we have no idea. My model of an infinite cosmos, shows that we will find some objects moving towards us, and the further away we look, the more likely we are to find those objects.

I believe Hawking is correct on his radiation. However, it can't exist without my model explaining how his "particles" can leave the event with an apparent velocity greater than the speed of light. I disagree with his hypothesis that these same black holes eventually evaporate. Again, a finite cosmos led to these conclusions. In an infinite cosmos, one understands that each black hole never stop growing because new material will always be available to enter and the evaporation could never keep up with the entry of new material. But once you understand E=gmc^2, you will see that every system I propose follows the same basic set of rules and they never change. In a single big bang model, one has the problem of where the material came from that made the big bang. But in my model, it is just recycled old universes. Thus there is no contradiction.

I agree that current models of Nature don't imply that no two things can exist in the same space, but that is a founding principle of the gravionic model. You see, the connections of gravity make all space that we know. Time is the changing of the connections. I have examined this assumption from the most basic levels and we see the implementation of this principle in all that we see. Sound propagation is an example of each molecule requiring its own "space." Electrons in a super conducting situation also exhibit these properties. Philosophically, once you understand my model, you understand that all physical events are a one time event. The history of each particle makes it unique. If you don't believe that each physical system requires its own space, try running your head into a tree limb, and I think you will receive positive feedback that your head and the tree limb can't occupy the same space. The same is true for every particle that exists. Gravity is about the business of defining space and thus the relationship of all things that exist.

The singularity of the current math on black holes is just wrong. Math is designed to imitate nature, yet we often find that the simple equations that look best at first, are only describing general situations and not the true nature of reality. To say that everything occupies a single space is just more finite assumptions. The "real" equations to describe an actual BBE must more complicated. Look at the galaxies.jpg that I suggested and you will see what the math should look like to describe a pre BBE situation.

The event boundary seems no problem for me. First, only those who believe in a finite cosmos would ever think that all material was in a single Event. Once you consider an infinite cosmos, with multiple big bangs, you realize that when any Event occurs, there will always be something existing somewhere else that is not included. Thus there must be an event boundary. What other "explosion" do you know of that doesn't have an event boundary? If you understand E=gmc^2, then you will see that it describes the energy of any real system. A black hole before an Event would be a physical system. Some of the energy is in the mass, but most of it has been converted to gravity to extend the space the black hole "controls." As you look at the galaxies picture, realize that every spike represents a black hole and its relationship of energy. At any point that the spike reaches a value high enough, the event occurs. This would be when m goes to an effective value of zero and the equation, as well as the black hole comes apart. But other black holes nearby, have not exceeded this limit, so they don't become involved. If you believe in an infinite cosmos, you must believe that each Event has a boundary.

Your letter does help. I hope you will think of these things. Your assumptions rule all of your logical thought and assumptions must be revisited on a regular basis if you want your thoughts to not become bogged down in those assumptions. I believe that all the evidence is already available to support my model, mankind just needs to look from this new viewpoint.

I identify with your quote. It is so hard to write these things. If I could spend a day with you, I think I could answer your questions, because in person, I could see what things you understand and what things you don't and it makes it much easier to follow the arguments.

If you can guide any others to my ideas, I would be thankful. There is so much more to say, but I have other mail to answer.

Your friend,