Also, I would like to publicly apologize to Jeffery. I wrote him a week or so ago, and I guess my anger showed in my letter. After thinking about things, I realize that I probably treated him much like my son, who lives alone with me. Sometimes I am mad at someone else, but since he is the only one here, he gets the anger when he really didn't deserve it. When I wrote Jeffery the other day, it was during his show. But now I realize that I wasn't mad at Jeffery. I'm mad at the rest of the world because they don't seem to care about the things that Jeffery talks about all the time. I wonder why so many people are caught up with being entertained so they don't have to use their minds. Entertainment to me is learning something new. Jeffery and his friends are using their minds and asking the questions that need to be asked, so I should be patting him on the back. I just wish that there were a hundred shows like his, and not so much of the mind numbing drivel that prevails in most television programs. So Jeffery, keep up the good work. But on the other hand, I believe the gravionic model resolves many of the questions being asked, provides insight into those it doesn't yet answer, and poses other questions that now need to be explored.

"The fault usually lies in a certain habitual way of looking at things."

This is the essence of the gravionic model. I have tried to go back to the very beginning and look at all things again. After years of work in the computer field, I have come to understand that most of the really hard problems are resolved by looking at the assumptions. Logical though is only as good as the assumptions that support it. So what assumptions do I think are wrong and misleading?

The assumption of a graviton particle as "carrying" the gravity force is not logically consistent. This very assumption assumes that mass can exist without gravity and that gravity can exist without mass. On the show the other night, they were talking about the string equations that describe gravity. Yet without attaching the mass, how can they describe a real system? Apparently scientist would have us believe that some particles can combine without gravity "knowing" about the event. Each particle must carry its own gravity, since mass and gravity are two aspects of the same real thing. I once asked a physics student what brought the first two particles together. Of course my simple answer was gravity. But his answer was "It depends on which two particles," since he was mislead by the naming of the different "forces" that affect different particles. Once you understand that mass represents places for connections of gravity to occur, and that gravity represents the relationships of these particles by the connections of gravity, it becomes clear that we can't just take this graviton imaginary particle and "add" it on to other particles to give them gravity. Gravity is inherent in any mass that exists in the real world.

Einstein's equation leaves no room for gravity, so this is where the misunderstanding has started. Once you see the complete equation (E=gmc^2), you realize that we must always consider all of these components at the same time to describe any real system and that mass and gravity and energy are the components of all real systems. Any equation that doesn't take into account all of the aspects of this equation do not represent real entities.

Next is the assumption that mathematics IS reality. Mathematics is a model (just like our minds are models) used to describe real things. But they are never the real thing. Just because an equation "looks" good, does not mean it actually describes real things. An example is the equations that seem to indicate a big bang starts as a single unity. My model shows that not even two real things can occupy the same space (since the connections of gravity define all space that we know), never mind all things that ever existed. To look at a large collection of black holes and understand how complex the equations would be to describe a real Event, look at my web site and pull up the file titled galaxies.jpg (www.micromike.com/glaxies.jpg). This picture represents a collection of black holes which are pre-big bang.

Next is the assumption that gravity propagates at an infinite speed. Now I know that many models of EMR show a gravity wave propagating at C in front of the EMR and I believe I can show that this is philosophically impossible. But we are talking of assumptions, so I want to read you a quote from my physics book. "Between every two particles in the universe there is a force of gravitational attraction which is proportional to the product of the masses of the two particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them." First of all I agree with this statement in that it shows that mass and gravity are always proportional. But I disagree that every two particles share this force at the same time. My model shows that only those systems which have connections of gravity can apply this rule, although eventually, almost everything seems to get connected somewhere to the vast system of connections that make up our cosmos. A particle setting in my hand does not have direct connections to some other tiny little particle on the other side of the cosmos. Objects orbiting in our solar system are not attracted to Earth, until they get close enough to make connections of gravity. But the assumption in this quote is that the force acts instantaneously, which I say is impossible. If the force of gravity was instantaneous, gravity would act outside of time and I don't think that is possible. So the assumption within the quote is that this force is infinite in speed and I claim that it can propagate no faster than C^2. This assumption comes from the fact that mankind always assumes that his coordinate systems are infinite in speed. I watched my 17 years old son doing his algebra this week. How do we solve a problem. First we draw a coordinate system and then plot the results. We assume that our coordinate system "finds" these points at an infinite velocity. Nature doesn't have this luxury and must determine the positions of all things in "real" time. I have proposed several experiments for proving my determination that gravity propagates at C^2.

And finally is the assumption that the cosmos is finite. It is funny to me that mankind talks of infinity all the time, yet the prevailing basic model of the cosmos assumes a finite cosmos (the single big bang model). I wonder how an organism can rise to awareness and then proclaim its imagination is larger than the cosmos that created it? If we can imagine infinite situations and we are a physical system that represents a subset of all that exists, how can a subset be "more" than the whole?

As I get time I will tackle other problems you have talked about.

Your friend,