|...dedicated to the preservation of infinity in cosmology!|
|Contents (SPOC) From C to C^2 Black Holes Infinite Cosmos letter Asteroid Capture Project Flat Universe Society Jean-Pierre's finite Cosmos Jean-Pierre2 Logical proof of an infinite cosmos sites overview Common Links MarsLife home Back to micromike.com|
From C to C2
| Answers to "A Brief History of Time"
From Black Holes to Big Bangs
I write this to help humanity move from C to C2. All of mankinds history has been a search to increase our awareness of the world around us. I believe modern science is currently at the "C" stage and now needs to move to "C2." We began our awareness by making the Earth the center of everything. As time has gone on, we have increased our awareness and therefore have expanded our view of the cosmos. I am asking humanity to take the next step and move to an infinite cosmos model and realize that there is no center to an infinite cosmos. Science and much of humanity currently believe that a single big bang created everything that ever existed, and it all came from nothing! This is just a continuation of the "Earth is the center of everything" model. We need to give up this fascination with ourselves and look outward to see what we can see. An infinite model shows that universes come and go, but the cosmos itself never begins or ends. There can be no "center" to an infinite cosmos, only that center we perceive from our "local" viewpoint.
The gravionic model shows that reality takes place in a two step sequence. First the connections of gravity takes place and then the energy is transferred for that particular reaction. Science, to date, has been studying everything after the connections of gravity have already been made. This is how science is able to predict situations. They establish the connections of gravity and then "start" their experiment. This is the C portion of our universe. But for science to be complete, it must learn to study things from the very beginning, from the C2 perspective. Many of the spiritual parts of life take place in the C2 part of reality and that is why many of these events, though real, aren't reproducible by science. All of nature consists of unique particles and unique connections of gravity and so not all things that are real are necessarily reproducible. The next step for science is to learn the world of C2 so that we can determine which connections of gravity are real and which are illusions. The key to better understanding our science and our spirituality both lie in a better comprehension of all the aspects of gravity.
As I have pondered the questions asked by Hawking, I have become aware of how important assumptions are in the foundation of logical thought. I think Hawking, with a only a few exceptions, has done a masterful job of stating the important questions for science and humanity to answer. But I have found that many of the answers to all kinds of questions can be found by a careful examination of the assumptions that have been made. Logical thought can only be as good as the assumptions from which that logical thought is derived.
Lets look at some of the assumptions that may have led Hawking (and everyone else) astray: the assumption that every particle in the cosmos has to have the same beginning, the assumption that a universe and a cosmos are the same thing, the assumption that there was a single big bang, the assumption that mathematics is reality, the assumption that we dont need to worry about gravity in small particles, the assumption that gravity has an infinite speed, the assumption that a straight line exists. And finally, the lack of assumption that gravity must be involved in every exchange of energy in the real world.
My main arguments with the current scientific models revolve around two basic assumptions. Science has assumed the cosmos if finite and the gravity is infinite and I have assumed the opposite: the cosmos is infinite and gravity must be finite.
Assumptions are the "killers" of logical arguments. Many of the problems that Hawking perceives are based on his assumptions. The most basic assumption he has made is that the cosmos has only a single big bang, a single universe and therefore must be finite in nature. The assumption of a single universe arose when it was "discovered" that the universe is expanding and therefore must have been in a single spot if we go back in time. However, I have not assumed the cosmos is expanding, rather I have assumed it is moving in all directions. I have not assumed, therefore, that there was only a single big bang. I have assumed an infinite number of them. Because I could not assume a single big bang, I was driven to find a model that explains where big bangs come from, since I have to account for many. Modern science has assumed a single big bang and therefore has decided to forgo the question of where it came from.
One of the questions that I have spent much time thinking about is, "What is required to make a single thing?" or "What is the minimum condition for existence?" My thought and my assumptions have led me to believe that all things we know are composed of mass, gravity, and energy. Thus to talk about a complete thing, we would have to include all three aspects of its existence. And if we talk about just one or two of these features and leave out the other, then we are not talking about a complete thing. As an example, scientist generally talk about light coming from the sun as if it was a complete thing. But to understand the complete system, one would have to consider the mass and gravity that is associated with that energy. To talk of the energy alone as if it could exist alone, is very misleading. So assumptions are very important in all logical thought.
C1P1 How we view the world around us is defined by models we create, both within our individual minds, and collectively within our society as the models we use to explain science and other aspects of our existence. It is natural that our models of science continue to grow as we grow and as our need to understand becomes greater. A society based on technology definitely has a greater need for exact models than does a society based on hunting and gathering. As a philosopher of science, my job is to find the simplest model that explains the most. For more information on a new model of physical systems, see "The Philosophy of Space and Time" or "An Idiots Guide to Gravity." For more information on how human beings use models to represent the world around themselves, see "The Theory of Realativity."
C1P2S1 We think we know better because we have created scientific models which demonstrate reproducible systems. Remember that all systems of viewing the world involve the making of models by which to judge the world. Early man made simple models but as our awareness has increased, our models have become more complicated and more effective. (If I drop a rock on your head from the same height, it will hurt the same amount, no matter where on Earth we happen to be. This experiment is reproducible. Some say this is not a good scientific experiment, but I used the example to try to make a point.) What is important is to be able to predict situations and not just being able to explain things by saying "God just wanted that to happen." The reason we think we know better is because our models are reproducible and provide predictive information. These are good reasons to trust the new models over the old.
S2 What do we know and how do we know it is the job of philosophy. Since this is such a large question, I will save the complete answer until my book "The Theory of Realativity."
S3 If you understand my model, then you know that each universe comes from a combination of materials generated in big bangs and material it becomes involved with over time. A new universe is a recycling of an old universe. While that is happening, other universes are continuing their development at other places in space and time. Our universe will eventually go where all universes go; to the bottom of a black hole. We will wait there a short time from the perspective of things in the black hole, but we will be there a long time from the perspective of things outside the black hole. Then, one day, we will start over as energy and begin again to make another universe.
S4 Of course our universe had a beginning. Hawking shows his assumption here by asking the question "Did the universe ". He has assumed only a single universe and a single big bang. He didnt say our universe or a universe. Once one realizes that the cosmos must be infinite, then the answer becomes "yes," our universe did have a beginning. It came from a black hole that became too large and that is where the material originated before "our" beginning. What happened before that, we cant know. We can only know that it has been going on forever and will continue forever, because no matter what happens in any local region of space and time, space and time are continuing somewhere else and it doesnt have to have a relationship to what we are doing.
S5 Time is the changing of the connections of gravity. Gravity has the job of keeping track of the relationship of all things. Therefore, it must "know" about these things. It does this by making connections of gravity (gravions) and by exchanging energy through these connections. All bonds in nature therefore must have a gravitational component. Time is the progression of connections of gravions. Past time represents those connections which have already been made. The present represents those connections which are being made and the future represents those connections of gravity yet to be made. Time progresses in a single direction because each new event is dependent on all the events that have passed before. Not all connections of gravity are possible for each new event.
S6 Time only comes to an end when we talk about an individual particle or universe. Time begins for the new universe and ends for the old at the moment of a big bang. However, as far as the cosmos is concerned, time always has something to do somewhere. Time never ends for all particles together.
I believe the Gravionic Model of Physical Systems will provide a model that allows all persons to have a common model to help them explain what they see. One of the most important questions that I think Hawking failed to ask, is what is the human energy and how does it relate to all the other energies science likes to study. What about human bonds. How do they compare to the bonds in science? The gravionic model shows that every bond we call real, must have a gravitational component. Therefore, I think my model addresses such topics as these and more.
C1P3 I agree that the Earth is basically round.
C1P4 There is some interesting material here because I think the ancients have had some good thoughts about how things are put together. It is interesting to note that these people had no last sphere in their model. They thought there was something we couldnt know about. This turns out to be true. We can never look past certain "spheres" because of the limitations of space and time.
C1P5,6 There is very little here except history. What I like is future history.
C1P7,8 What needs to be discussed in this paragraph is Newtons law of universal gravitation. This law contains assumptions that I want to address. The law states that each body in the universe is attracted to every other body by a force which is stronger the more massive the bodies and the closer they are to each other. My model shows that only those bodies whose gravions are "touching" will actually have this effect upon each other. Since gravity has a finite speed, then all particles cant know the instantaneous position of all other particles. But I do agree that once the connections of gravity are established between two bodies, then the force of attraction is proportional to the masses and inversely proportional to the distance.
The first assumption is that gravity must propagate at an infinite speed. Einstein said there is no universal coordinate system and he was right about that. Philosophically, the reason that Einstein was right is because gravity cant propagate at an infinite speed. The only way that there could be a universal coordinate system is if gravity could determine the position of all things at the same time. But the fact that all coordinate systems are equal implies that gravity must take some finite time to measure and connect real systems.
Newton is saying that every body experiences the force of gravity for every other body. My model shows bodies can only interact with other bodies that actually make connections of gravity between them and therefore exist in the same space. Of course, this network of connections is so diverse that I could start at me and make connections all the way to any star, but that doesnt mean I am directly connected to every star all the time. So I dont agree with Newton. Not all particles are connected to all particles all of the time. The universe we know is made of the connections that exist now. Our universe is connected to other universes or we wouldnt be able to see them.
So I disagree with Newton about the speed of gravity. He assumes an infinite speed and I am saying philosophically that cant be true. Gravity must have a limit. The problem arises because humans always define the coordinate system before they solve a problem. They just assume an infinite speed. But gravity has the job of establishing natures coordinate system, and it has to do that from each particle out and, it has to do it in "real time." The space for each particle is created by its gravity.
The next part I agree with Newton but disagree with Einstein. Newton said that the gravity of any particle is directly proportional to its mass. This simply means that as the mass gets greater, the gravity gets greater. I think this is very important and goes to the heart of my first principle which states that mass and gravity are two aspects of the same thing.
I disagree with Einstein when he said that E=mc2. I believe he was right when he said that mass and energy are interchangeable. But he forgot his logic when he tried to say that one could add energy to mass without also increasing the gravity of the system. Gravity and energy are also interchangeable and, in fact, when one adds energy to a system, both its mass and its gravity increase. This is why E=gmc2 is the correct equation for energy of a system. One must account for the gravity of every system one wants to study in full.
C1P9 Newton was right about this one. The stars will tend to come together. The problem is one of perspective. Newton is right within any group of stars that have connections between them. But those stars or galaxies which are two for away to have connections, will not be included in that Event. What the cosmos shows us is finite sets of stars in universes. But universes continually interact and the whole thing is infinite in size so there is room for all things to happen. Material in the real world experiences all the situations that Newton describes. Some particles may wander aimlessly for eons and never be in large gravitational fields while other particles may quickly make their way to black holes and remain "useless forever."
C1P10 Apparently Hawking doesnt like infinity, but I do. The problem is he either tries an infinite universe or a finite universe but never a finite universe in an infinite cosmos. Newton is right when he says that all stars with gravitational connections will eventually fall in upon themselves. We see this happening everywhere in our universe and in the cosmos. Black holes are at the center of galaxies for a reason. Gravity keeps pulling and pulling. The problem has arisen because there didnt seem to be any "release" for this situation. But once you understand that the black hole will eventually spew it contents outward in a big bang explosion, you realize that it is all right for gravity to always be pulling things together and we dont have to worry about a universe "balancing" itself.
C1P11 We see two choices here that were considered by early thinkers. Either the universe had existed forever in an unchanging status or it was created in a finite time just like it is. Of course the answer is that the cosmos has existed forever as the different parts of it (universes) come and go. So it is not static. It is dynamic. Each universe is dynamic and the cosmos in general is dynamic.
People do want to believe in eternal truths and I dont find any fault with that. We have many choices in our search for eternity. Of course this planet will last longer than a human life time, but some day it will end. That material will be recycled in other solar systems, each with individual beginnings and endings. Finally that material will end up in a black hole and its usefulness will be over. But that still doesnt represent eternity, although some material will be there a very long time. Eventually that material will be recycled by a big bang and then it all starts over again. Now that is eternal. The universe itself is not eternal but the cosmos must be larger than a single universe.
C1P12 I dont like the idea of modifying our rules to fit the situation. My model allows gravity to be the same all over the cosmos. The equilibrium of the cosmos is obtained by the balance of the motions and the pull of gravity. Gravity always wins in the end, but sometimes it takes a very long time.
C1P13 The arguments he makes here are for an infinite static universe so they dont apply to my finite dynamic universe in an infinite dynamic cosmos. We dont have to worry that every line of site will be a star since in an infinite cosmos, we can never see all of it. From any viewpoint, one can only see stars that have a series of connections between the viewer and the star. There are an infinite number of stars, but many are so far away in space or time, that we cant see them. The limitations of mass and gravity make this a certainty. Of course, by my model, the stars have "turned off and on" many times as stars and galaxies and universes have moved through their cycles.
C1P14 There have been many guesses over the ages as to the age of the Earth, of the stars, the universe (our universe), the Milky Way, the cosmos, etc. We are finally at a point in our development that will allow us to begin making these measurements. The assumption of a single big bang has set back human progress to some degree because we have spent many years trying to answer the wrong questions. Without a proper overview, science has been led astray lately in trying to determine an age for everything. First of all, it only makes since to try to determine the age of something. When you say you want to determine the age of everything, you are assuming that everything was created at the same time and my model disputes that assumption. The lack of a proper overview is the fault of philosophy and I take responsibility for trying to change this state of affairs.
It is interesting to me that the two current conflicting views of creation, evolution and creationism, both rely on a "virgin" birth of the universe, but differ only in when it happened. I think it is important to have a model which explains the beginning and what happened before that and what, in general, will come to pass. Therefore, I have decided to call all people who believe in a single big bang, "The Flat Universe Society," because they seem to be afraid they might fall off the edge of the universe. My model shows that we have already seen the edge of our universe and we are now looking off into the cosmos at other universes. We should be naming and studying those universes in an attempt to better understand the motions and relationships of all objects we see.
C1P15 I dont think that the mention of a creation necessarily means a creator although I believe in one in my personal life. The beauty of an infinite view of the cosmos, is that we can now understand what we see, whether one believes in God or not. If one wants to follow the analogy far enough, one could say that a part of God is born by each big bang and a part of God dies with each big bang.
C1P16 Kants contradictions also are resolved by an infinite cosmological model. All of his arguments fall if you understand my model. The time between beginnings is a chaotic measurement that is proportional to the amount of mass in a region of space. Some particles may go "forever" without being recycled, while others may quickly go from new to old. The problem again is the assumption of a single creation for everything. Multiple creations answer these contradictions.
There is no time before a universe, for that universe. However, the rest of the universes out there were still experiencing time even though the new universe being created "knows" nothing of what went before and actually knows nothing of the rest of the cosmos until it begins making particles and connections. So time is a property of each universe that God creates, assuming God created the universe.
C1P17 The reason the cosmos seems to be so static to us is that we are such a small part and are looking back at the cosmos with such a small eye, we dont see all of the movement that is going on. It just goes on forever.
Hubble assumed that the universe was expanding. He made this assumption because it appeared to him that the further away things were, the faster they appeared to be moving away from us. The main reason he assumed this is because of the shifting of light towards the red by objects that appear to be far away. The current thought has been that the more the red shift, the further away the object. My model indicates the red shift occurs when light energy travels from one gravitational system to another. Each "transfer" from one system to another requires a tiny bit of energy and this loss causes the shift we see. Thus the red shift is a marker for how many gravion connections have been made, rather than a true measure of distance.
Also, it is my contention, that if one takes an infinite model like I have proposed and set all this stuff moving around for eternity and then look from any viewpoint, it will look like most things are moving away from you. If we look long and hard, I am sure we will find distant objects that are moving towards us. There are just so many objects and it is so hard to actually measure their distance and speed with respect to our observing position.
C1P18 Again, Hawking shows his assumptions by calling a big bang, the big bang. A big bang does mark a barrier of history. Before the Event, a black hole is made of mass and many connections of gravity. These connection, in some way, represent the history of the material. But once the Event occurs, all connections are broken and therefore all history of that material is gone. But dont despair. This material now begins to make new connections and starts it history all over again.
Hawking states that he thinks that this situation places limits on a creator. If you imagine multiple big bangs and an infinite cosmos, you can easily see that a creator would have lots of options and so wouldnt be constrained much.
C1P19-21 I may take a more simple view than does Hawking about scientific theories. I think all knowledge is contained within the models we make within our minds as well as the model we describe to others. All of human existence has been about the making of better models and more closely represent the experiences we have in the real world. The reality of these models is simply the ability to help us better understand the world we see around us.
C1P22 I have proposed a new model of physical system (The Gravionic Model of Physical Systems) and so I have some definite opinions about what science is about. To me, all questions are questions of science. My model allows the integration of spiritual matters and scientific models, since any "unified" theory should address everything that we know as real. This is one of the reasons science has taken so long to come to a unified view. Because many scientist were only trying to unify those things they thought belonged to science and ignored those areas they thought to be outside of science. But science should ultimately be able to explain any event that we call real.
C1P23 Hawking thinks that a unified view of the cosmos is a complicated thing. Actually it is very simple. Again, the reason I have been able to solve this problem is because I have studied every aspect of science and kept up with advancements in all areas. The questions I have asked concerned every event that I have witness whether scientific or spiritual, and my answers must address all aspects or it wouldnt be unified.
C1P24 The search for a unified view of the cosmos which would include quantum physics and relativity has long been a goal of science. My model resolves the conflicts, and again it does so by examining the assumptions. One of the things I have said is that gravity must have a finite speed in defining space. Once you understand that gravity must be involved in every exchange of energy, you realize that the little particles we have been calling a single unit, are actually two or more particles and they are making and breaking these connections of gravity at a speed of C2. It is no wonder that these small systems look like a blur to our instruments, because presently we are limited to the speed of light when we try to look into a small system. Once you understand my model, you will be able to see how the two systems can be united. For more information, see "The Philosophy of Space and Time."
C1P25 This paragraph deals with causality and therefore needs a great deal of explanation to understand how the problems Hawking states are resolved by my model. In my view, we can have a universe that follows a certain set of laws, but still allows free will. Under my model, reality proceeds in a two part fashion. First a connection of gravity is made at the speed of C2 and then comes the energy transfer that we perceive as the real event. Once a connection is made, then events proceed in an orderly manner and the laws of the universe that we know are upheld. Once the connections of gravity have been made, what follows is a direct result of the connection.
The important thing to understand is that before the connections of gravity are made, is the time that free will comes into play. Not all connections are possible, yet there must be many choices about where each connection is made. We dont yet know the rules that would allow one connection to be made over another, but it is obvious to me that there are choices at this point and if God needs a place to work, the least energy for the most results would come from Him managing those connections.
My model shows that the human mind is a series of connections of gravity and the models that we perceive as reality are actually models made by the connections of gravity with our minds. Therefore, each of our thoughts is a series of connections of gravity and if God wants to work in our lives, changing a few connections within a persons mind might be all that is necessary. If you dont believe in God, the connections of gravity within your mind still represent the one place where the least energy is required to change the world the most. A person can change his mind about something and then go change the world based on the thoughts that were made.
C1P26 The reason I dont think our scientific theories will destroy us comes from my philosophical views of the cosmos. If we examine the situation shortly after a big bang, at the beginning of a universe, we would find that there is no order because there are no connections of gravity. But once these connections begin to make, this universe begins to establish order. Human beings represent a tremendous degree of order. If we look at good and bad, a case can be made at each situation, that order is good and lack of order is bad. When someone kills another human being, they have reduced the order in the world. From a philosophical viewpoint, one could say that we represent the highest order on our planet. It is my contention that no beings that become aware of themselves can help to understand that order is the only chance they have to continue existing. Thus, I would not be afraid of any "aliens" I might meet, since I think they would have to come to a high degree of order to actually get here or communicate with us. I think it is philosophically impossible for a civilization to reach the stars without learning how to love and to love the order of the cosmos.
C1P27 Hawking states that he is not sure the search for a unified view of the cosmos is worth while. I cant disagree more. For us to live together on this planet, it is important for us all to understand each other. A unified view of the cosmos should offer every human on the planet a method whereby we each can understand the world around us by a common set of rules and yet each of us can explore those rules to see how we fit in the overall scheme of things. My model actually proves that love is real and shows the methods by which one can determine the truth of any love. I think that is one of the most important lessons mankind can learn and it is supported by the gravionic model.
The gravionic model will affect science as well as the way we view the world. One of the first principles of this model is that the cosmos is infinite. Can you imagine the difference if each child that is born is taught that he lives in an infinite cosmos and therefore, the only limits he has is the limits he imposes upon himself. (I use man in the mankind sense.) A good unified model will help mankind survive because it will teach us about ourselves and the world we live in. It will encourages us to become cosmic citizens and to not only recognize our place in the cosmos, but take our place in the cosmos.
Copyright 1998,1999, 2000, 2001
All rights reserved worldwide.
A license to use pictures and text can be purchased for a nominal fee at: thegravitystore
(SPOC) From C to C^2
Black Holes Infinite Cosmos letter
Asteroid Capture Project
Flat Universe Society
Jean-Pierre's finite Cosmos Jean-Pierre2
Logical proof of an infinite cosmos sites overview Common
NASA contact page