Jan asks, "Why only a subset of physical systems? What is a physical system?" A physical system, under the gravionic model, is any system that is real. By real, the system must have mass, gravity and energy. If our consciousness is real, then it must abide by these simple rules that start at the beginning and show how to build all the physical systems. So our mind and our thoughts and our consciousness must be real and therefore must be some subset of the physical systems we see around us. Therefore, philosophically I decided to start at the beginning and define all physical systems from the big bang to us, by a single model. Since we are a subset of the rest of the real world, we must be a subset of all the physical systems that make up the cosmos.

"You can't condense reality into a model, nor can you squeeze out reality from a model." I don't see a problem here as long as we keep separate those things we call real and those things we call the model. The job of philosophy is to always be aware of one's assumptions. All I am trying to do is review these assumptions and point out the logical inconsistencies that I see in the current versions of science. What I think I can do is present a very simple model that explains many things, but until I get some help, most of this will remain in the realm of philosophy. But philosophy is the foundation of all other knowledge, so improving our models improves our ability to understand nature.

"Is this close to the idea to link cs experience with quantum gravity?" Well first of all, I don't even believe in the concept of quantum gravity. This is a name given to the search for a unified view of the cosmos. Again, once you understand the gravionic model, quantum anything looks more like voodoo than science. I don't think quantum physics will even be taught in ten years, except in the same sense as Latin is taught. You see quantum physics does answer lots of questions, but the whole approach is wrong. Einstein was right we he thought that we could "know" the world and he "hated" quantum physics because it isn't precise. The gravionic model shows that we can understand sub atomic systems, once we understand that they are dominated by the connections of gravity. Thus to determine the position of an electron will require the use of gravions, which propagate at C^2, rather than the use of energy and mass which is limited to the speed of C. Nature must know the position of everything that exists, so nature has solved the problem. Mankind will one day know the same things, we just have to better understand how things work. So am I linking cs experience to quantum gravity? Yes and no. No I don't believe in quantum gravity, but yes I do believe that what we call cs is a physical system and it is mostly a gravionic system. Experiments have shown quantum forces at work within microtubules. What we are actually seeing is the working of this biological computer. Imagine if we could look into a modern computer, but all we could see was the radiation coming from the circuits. It would look quantum to us. But that would only be because of our limited viewpoint.

"But 'Gravity can not be held responsible for people falling love.' A. Einstein Or does it?"

Well of course it does. My model shows that gravions define space. Different kinds form different kinds of space. Our mind is a particular kind of space. But the energies of any gravitational object extend out beyond its mass and the same is true for human beings and their gravity. When someone sees another across and the room and their eyes meet, that is gravity. My model shows that there are two basic kinds of connections of gravity. The looping kind reach out and define the space for the object, while the self gravions define which things are part of the same self. New love involves lots of these looping kinds as the reach out and try to find "like" gravity. For the love to be real, it must involve connections of gravity and the exchange of energy. But for a relationship to really involve the two becoming one, the couple must make and maintain the self type gravions which define the couple as a single entity working together for the benefit of the whole. A properly working couple should "revolve" around each other, almost like an orbit.

"Well now I wonder, what is the speed of gravity?" I think this one of the most important questions of our time. If I could just get everyone asking this question, I think we could make great progress. I think I can prove philosophically that the speed can't be infinite and C+1 just won't work either. Again, when the time is right and people are listening to me, I will propose several experiments to prove this hypothesis. Remember that paired elementary particles when separated in space, are able to communicate faster than the speed of light.

"The art of science and technology seems to be to create such virtual rest-frames as limiting cases for limited purposes." One only need to raise one's awareness to the point that one understands that each "thing" in the real world establishes the rest of the cosmos in relation to itself. This is the essence of relativity. This is the essence of gravionics. Your are right in that mankind likes to take a finite portion of the problem and define a reference for it. Once gravionics is understood, this problem will disappear.

"But who takes care of the manager?" All real events occur because each particle that exists is reaching out to its limits and defining its space. As like (or unlike) spaces touch each other, they inherently measure each other by the formulae of E=gmc^2. I have often sat beside a river and watched the water flow. How does each molecule know where to go? How do they know when it is time to "knock off" a particle from the river bank and bring it into solution? How does the bank overhanging the water know when it is time to fall into the water? It knows because the gravity of all things reaches out and determines the space around it while proclaiming its own space. Once a connection is made, E=gmc^2 takes care of the rest and all energies flow to equalization.

"How do we cross the river Jordan?" The initial state of any universe is complete disorder, since there are no connections of gravity. Once you look at things from the viewpoint that even universes cycle, I don't see where there is a problem. It is all a matter of perspective. The universe starts as all unconnected particles (actually there are more things going on, but I am trying to present the simple cases for now and we can get into the more meaty issues once people begin looking seriously at my model). Think about shortly after a big bang. Now think of our world. Is there more order now than then? Yes. The same case can be made for any physical system that is looked at in its totality.

"Can mass be considered as condensed gravity?" No. Mass is one thing, gravity is another, energy is another, but they are all interchangeable depending on the reaction in question. Your question would be much the same as asking, can the point I am plotting on a graph, be the graph? NO.

"But then, the initial gravity is more like gravity-potential? (in the beginning "stored" in separate unrelated entities." This is absolutely correct. If you have followed my cosmology, then you understand that every mass that comes into existence contains most of the energy of that first system. This is where I get the title of one of my books, From C to C^2. That first particle contains most of its energy in the mass, although some must be in the gravity. Thus this particle does represent a great potential. As the particle combines with others and makes larger and more complex particles, each of these systems steals energy from the mass. All of the particles that have been identified to date, merely represent different ratios of energy between the mass and gravity of that particle. Every reaction that we know is basically the flopping of energy back and forth between mass and gravity. Some reactions end up with more mass and some with more gravity, but in the end, the net effect is to remove the energy from mass and pass it to gravity. Thus, in a black hole, it is mostly gravity.

"consciousness is not the brain, but the process of the brain." Yes "Does a (any) process have a mass or gravity." I think you are correct here. Consciousness is a process. Every process is a reaction of energies flowing between systems of different mass and different gravity. Since time is the changing of gravions, the process must involve the changing of lots of gravions to make us conscious and aware.

"These modern days, the "homunculus" (the little man in my head) is discarded as ridiculous, 'it can't be.'" Well if the little man in my head is not real, then where did all these words come from? The gravionic model fully supports your little guy and if we had a day or two together, I think you would find it very easily fits all the experiences of your life.

Your friend,