Home page for gravioncentral.com

The Philosophy of Space and time by micromike

GravionCentral.com

energy as gravions and mass

...dedicated to the gravionic model of physical systems! GMOPS

ľmike's philosophy ľmik'e cosmology

Martian Chronicle SitesOverview

3/20/99

Home Page

Story of a Gravion

Gravions represent the basic connections of gravity. Modern science has been confused for some time about the role of gravity in nature. Mankind has been searching for a "particle" that carries gravity. But particles, or mass, don't represent gravity. Particles represent mass. Philosophically, mass represents identity for all things that exist and gravity represents the relationship of those "things" that exist, in any universe. To define the relationship of any two masses, gravity must somehow connect these masses. Therefore, gravity must be the series of bonds and connections that make up all real things, and all bonds of all types between all masses, must be graviational in nature.. Thus every bond between every mass must be a connection of gravity, or a gravion. Once one understands the role of gravity, one can see that gravity must represent all connections between all masses that exist in the real world.

Since gravity defines the relationship between all masses, it must be responsible for defining the space that exists between the masses. Gravions, therefore, define all space as we know it. Einstein thought that space was Euclidean, that is, made up of three dimensions measured at right angles to each other. He thought that gravity then "bent" this somehow "straight" space. But what he didn't realize is that gravity must define the space and must define it from each mass outward. Nature does this by extending gravions outward to define the space of their existence. The more mass, the larger the gravions reach out and the more "space" they define. Einstein assumed that the speed of gravity must be infinite, because that is what we assume about our own coordinate systems in math. But in a relativistic cosmos, there is no universal Euclidean coordinate system and these gravions must extend out at a speed that is faster than the things that move within the system, but yet they must move at a speed that is less than infinity, or else exist outside of time. So gravity "moves" at the speed of light squared, as defined in the universal energy equation E=gmc²

This is the real thing

In pregravionic science, the graviton is the supposed particle that "carries" gravity. In the real world all particles "carry" gravity as the connections of gravity they have with other particles. In the real world, nature must measure the energy of the mass and the energy of the gravity "at the same time." To consider any real system, one must understand not only the actions of the mass, but more importantly, the actions of the gravions. Since gravions work at a faster speed than does light and particles, the gravitational connections are made first in each reaction and actually define which reactions occur and which do not. Thus the cosmos is indeterminate before the connections of gravity and determinate at the "time" of the connections. Free will exists, yet the cosmos has definite rules that it follows. All of pregravionic science has been the study of "events" after the connections of gravity has occurred. For science to fully understand any real system or event, science must learn to understand the underlying connections of gravity that make up all space that we know. Let me be the first to propose the "Moore Certainty Principle." I am certain that nature knows the exact position and the exact state of every mass that exists. Science has trouble in this arena because it tries to measure events happening at the speed of gravity by using the speed of light and everything looks like a blur. Imagine that! Try looking at gravity with gravity if you want to really understand the workings of nature.

If one looks at "modern" science, one sees that a group of people are looking at the mass and trying to develop a unified way of describing everything using mass. These people never consider gravity. They even have a particle they call the graviton and they say that a particle can therefore somehow accomplish the function of gravity, which is relationship. If you compare mass and gravity to the hubs and sticks of Tinker Toys, these people want to create "everything" from just the hubs. They want to ignore the "sticks" or the gravions. These people include most of the physical sciences including classical chemistry and physics, although all these people talk of "bonds" that I say must be different types of gravions..

This ain't real, man.

The other group is looking at gravity and trying to describe "everything," using only the sticks. These include the superstring mathematicians. They describe the gravions you see above, but they forget to connect them to masses. Also, they don't account for the speed that these gravions "need" to propagate in the real world, and they just make them "appear" out of nowhere in their equations. But reality doesn't have that luxury and must make its own space in its own time. So this is why 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.

Not E=mc^2 equals E=gmc^2

What we must learn is to deal with nature as physical systems and understand that all things that are real are made of energy and some of that energy is "used" by the mass and some of the energy is "used" by the gravions and some of the energy may by "cruising" the interconnections of gravions that make up the space within which any real thing exists. So lets put gravity and energy and mass back together again in our science, just as nature has kept it together all these years.

. little mike inside a gravion

Have a happy wholeness in your life.

Always consider the connections of gravity.

Two questions from Joel Bondurant:

Question 1

Mike,

If you are so interested in physics, why don't you major in that. Philosophy is not physics and yields NO insight into how physical systems behave.

Dear Joel,

I respectfully have to disagree with you on the value of philosophy in understanding our world. 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? You see, all human thought is about the creation of models by which humanity represents reality. As far as me majoring in physics, I have already stated that my only goal concerning universities, is to some day get an honorary doctorate in "Thinkology" from the University of Kansas. :-)

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 call our own. Thus as we look at the situation philosophically, we see that each human being has therefore made a model in their minds of what they think is real. If you have studied the workings of the human eye, you must understand that the 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. But this image is always a model of the real thing, it is not the real thing. 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.

So all of human knowledge, from our minds to all thoughts we have about the world outside ourselves, 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 you understand that all knowledge is models made to represent reality, then you become aware of how important a part that philosophy does play in the accumulation of that knowledge. The more abstract that each level of physics rises to, the more closely do philosophy and physics become the same.

When I was young, I was taught about atoms and molecules and such small things that I couldn't ever expect to see them. So what do we do? We see them in the mind's eye, through our imagination and by constructing models in our minds and then we transfer those models to paper and words so that others might see the same vision. Don't you 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.

If you don't believe me, read Einstein or Stephen Hawking. Both 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 was very active in the microcomputer revolution and I have also loved and studied every aspect of scientific thought. Currently, I have written the first chapter of a book that I have called From C to C² (From C to C squared). This book will be a complete listing of answers to all the questions that appear in Dr. Hawking's book. I have only written the first chapter, because I believe that most people could then answer the rest of the questions themselves, if they would first just understand the implications of the gravionic model and an infinite cosmos. I invite you to read for yourself, as all these documents and more are posted at my web site at www.micromike.com and www.micromikes.com.

So in the end, all you can say is that YOU don't think philosophy is important to understanding the workings of physical systems. That is your personal model of reality. 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.

If you would like to pursue this line of thought, I am available for speeches on this subject and several others. I would be glad to debate or discuss with you any aspect of our current argument or any aspect of the gravionic model. You see, unlike Einstein who had to guess at a lot of stuff, the experiments I need to prove the gravionic model have already been conducted. The people who have conducted these experiments do not understand what their results show, but the gravionic model has directly predicted some of these experiments, like those that show that "something" travels faster than the speed of light. The answer of course, is gravions travel faster than the speed of light, because philosophically, the gravitational system must form faster than the fastest thing that moves within it. So I would be glad to come to your town or city and explain these items and more. Speeches may be purchased at the microshop at www.TheGravityStore.Com.

Question 2

Your formula doesn't even yield dimensional units of energy.

Dear Joel,

You are basically correct on this charge. Mankind has developed a number of mathematical models in his desire to understand the world around himself. Since during this time of development, there was 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. Thus 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. Thus 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. 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. 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 it the correct name yet. 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.

Your friend,

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Mayer
To: mike@micromike.com <mike@micromike.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 10:56 PM
Subject: a shared mind

>i can not explain how enthused i am to find a web page that address the
>ideas I have been mulling over in my head. I just though i would write
>to express my support and share some of my views as well.
>

Brian, I can't tell you how much I value letters like yours. The end result of all my work is to just try to help people think and to help them think about things that are important. The world seems filled with people who are interested in only primitive concepts and never raise their thoughts to the level of the heavens. My job, as a philosopher, is to convince all the people of the world, that they too, can think of the highest and the best. An infinite cosmos would seem to better achieve that goal, than believing in the single big bang/finite cosmos model that is currently in vogue. Therefore, when I get comments like yours, it just makes me want to try harder to help everyone lift their thoughts to heavenly thoughts.

>I believe that the big bang theory works on a much smaller scale than
>the supporters content. If the universe is a finite entity in a state
>of expansion, then we must look at that. In order to claim that the
>universe is expanding it must have some form of a leading edge that we
>can compare its change to in relation to two arbitrary points in time( i
>am of the belief that time, energy and therefore matter are also
>infinite). If the universe then is expanding, if there is a growth
>outward what does that leading edge expand into???????? In order to
>define an edge it must have primitively two sides, so what is on the
>other side of this expanding edge, nothing? even a state of emptiness,
>which cannot truly exist is something. This Big Bang void must be
>primed or conducive to the oncoming "universe" should it not?
>

I support your arguments in the preceding paragraph. One problem you don't mention is the assumption of the speed of gravity. In other words, how fast does gravity know about new connections that are occurring between masses moving through a particular universe? The assumption in all of cosmology today, is that gravity has an infinite speed. Yet I would argue that the speed of gravity could not be infinite, because then it would exist outside of time, and that doesn't seem possible. Also, I have a degree in electronics, and I was taught in electronics, that when a new electromagnetic wave is being created, that a "gravity wave" goes out right in front of the energy wave and travels at the speed of light. Therefore, two parts of science have different assumptions about the speed of gravity. Of course, I have decided that the speed of gravity must be C², which is much faster than the speed of light, but much slower than an infinite speed. Thus, if you accept any finite speed for the speed of gravity, you realize that it is not possible for gravity to "know" about everything that exists in the cosmos at the same "time." Individual connections of gravity determine which bodies "know" about each other and these proceed at the speed of gravity. Thus, philosophically and logically, a single big bang in a finite cosmos is not even a possibility, if gravity has any speed less than infinity.

>Instead i contend that there never has been a beginning of the universe (here I would only substitute the word cosmos instead of universe. Universes come and go, but the rest of the cosmos goes on about its merry way.)
>or time for that matter it just exists. We create time in order to
>better define and understand the world we relate to but we also invent
>unicorns, does the thought of an idea make it real, no.(The gravionic model defines time as the changing of gravions. Thus I can't make my arguments until you accept it, but assuming you do, then time does exist as a function of nature. It is just that this time is not precisely incremented the way man wants it to be. Nature has her own order and mankind has his way of viewing this order. We can never
>truly understand the universe and define it completely for it would be
>like being conscious on the level of an electron in oxygen that forms a
>water molecule that is part of an endless ocean. And at that subatomic
>level we are trying to speculate as to the manner in which that ocean
>acts...... it is too broad to conceptualize.
>

The cosmos is infinite and that does seem to be a lot to visualize. But it is not hard for me. In my imagination, I travel outward and I see stars and galaxies and superclusters of galaxies. But no matter how far I travel, I just keep finding more and more and that is very exciting to me. There is no end to what can be learned. But on the other side, we are each finite beings. We have a finite number of molecules and connections of gravity. How is it that we can then imagine the infinite? It is the part of us that connects us with God. We may be only a finite mass and a finite set of connections of gravions, but we are connected to an infinite network. If I were to follow the connections of gravity, I know that I am connected to the planet Earth and that every bond within my body is a connection of gravity. Yet the Earth has direct connections of gravity to the sun, because we are orbiting the body. And our sun has connections of gravity with the black holes at the center of our galaxy, for the same reason. And the center of our galaxy has connections with other galaxies and the process goes on and on. You are connected, in some way, to the black hole at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Now don't you feel more a part of an infinite cosmos? So give yourself credit. If you think you can't understand the cosmos, then you will never be able to understand. Sometimes, understanding is more than just knowledge. Sometimes understanding is just being and feeling and knowing. In those moments, I think we can "know" an infinite cosmos. In my imagination, I have been conscious at the level of an electron in an oxygen atom in a water molecule in an endless ocean. I have also been conscious at the level of black holes and galaxy superclusters. How else could I hope to be one with it and to understand what it is? So, although you are technically correct when you say that we can never completely define anything, on the other hand, we can know any part of the cosmos that we care to know.

>If we go back in time all things are possible, hey there was once a star
>where your living room was, and an infinite number of years from now
>there will be another.......
>
>thanks for the support, imagination is the key to understanding
>
>Brian Mayer
>Buffalo, NY
>
>
I very much appreciate you kind letter and your good spirit. Keep on thinking.

Your friend,

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian
To: micromike <mike@micromike.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 02, 1999 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: reply

I greatly appreciate the time put in to the response to my letter. I do
>wish to clarify an idea in the last portion of my original letter. I
>wholeheartedly agree with your final paragraph and what i had originally
>intended was that the cosmos is so vast and complex, that a simplified
>model can not possibly explain everything. The most wonderous thing
>about the cosmos is that no matter what we can begin to imagine about
>it's depths and complexities, it is hundreds of thousands fold grander
>beyond our imagination. There are states of being and relationships we,
>with our limited exposure and relative youth as a species, have yet to
>be exposed to. We are intellectually babies in how far we can push our
>imaginative and conceptual understandings of how the world works. We
>are too eager to live the rum-tum daily life and not wonder or question
>as to what it is our life is, what rules does it follow and what the is
>behind the curtain.........
>
>I have just started examining the science behind the places and ideas i
>have been wander in my head, so i am not fully versed in all the
>theories. My interest in changing that situation brought me to you
>sight. Hopefully as i further my understanding of all the different
>theories i will better be able to express the cosmos as i see it in my
>minds eye.
>
>
>
>
>
>Brian Mayer
>Buffalo, Ny

Brian,

Thanks again for your response. I still disagree with you slightly, in that I think the cosmos has a very simple set of rules that are easy to learn and that guide all operations of the cosmos. However, you are right in many ways. I think it is wonderful that we live in a cosmos, where we can know any part that we want, yet in an infinite cosmos, the entirety of all we can know can only be a small part of what exits. It's wonderful that we can have order and science and yet still have free will as human beings. It's wonderful that you and I can discuss these things and agree or disagree and still be friends. It's wonderful to me, that you care enough to think and write of these things, and I can only encourage you to continue to develop your own thoughts. Listen to what others say and do your best to understand their viewpoint, but never give up your right to view things your own way.

Your friend,

micromike

-----Original Message-----
From: Patterson, Michelle
To: 'aaron@micromike.com' <aaron@micromike.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 03, 1999 1:10 AM
Subject: a superstring is a line, a line is forever never meeting a point a
point but continual, therefore one superstring
>is not enough, it would take millions of superstrings to create space, in
>conclusion there is no end to space or beginning.
>
> B
>

Dear Michelle,

Whew! What a statement! Let's examine it. "A superstring is a line, a line is forever never meeting a point…" 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.

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. So to say that a line has no end points, is to talk of some imaginary line. In nature, every line (connection of gravity) must go between two points. If you look at the picture 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 a straight line in "space" with no connecting points, but nature must follow the first principle. Thus, in nature, every gravion ends in two masses. Gravity is not analog and like some kind of giant "sheet," but rather it is digital and is composed of individual connections of gravity called gravions. So I don't agree with the statement that in nature, a line (gravion) goes on forever. Every gravion is finite in length. I have asked similar questions of the superstring mathematicians along these same lines, but as of this date, none have answered me. See Questions.html.

But there are very many gravions (superstrings) that create space. Even though each connection 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 end to space or beginning." I agree with your conclusion, although I disagree with the logic that states that real "lines" in real space are infinite in length. That just doesn't meet the needs of E=gmc², which states that all of the energy of a real system must be considered at the same time.

So Michelle, I agree with your conclusion, if not your logic in getting there. (I hope this is not sexist, but when I read e-mail, I never look at who sent it. I take each question asked of me as just a question. But after I read through the logic a couple of times, I thought, "This must have been written by a woman," so I looked and sure enough, it was from Michelle. I don't claim there is any significance to this aside, only that I find it amusing. J )

Your friend,

3/10/99

Questions written to someone else, but forwarded to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Darrell Bird <buddacow@hotmail.com>
To: Aaron@Micromike.com <Aaron@Micromike.com>
Date: Monday, March 08, 1999 7:52 PM
Subject: Email #2

> So you're saying that the expansion of an object or a system is in
>itself causing warped or curved space time. But isn't this just a
>modified version of Einstein's general theory of relativity? His theory
>says that there is no such thing as accelerated motion. Everything is
>moving at a constant velocity in a straight line in space-time. If in
>our reference frame we perceive an objects motion to have accelerated by
>changing velocities or by changing direction (such as throwing a ball in
>the air), it is only because the space-time it was traveling in was
>curved. And now for the million dollar question: What causes curved
>space-time? Einstein said it was merely any object with mass. But how
>vague is that? Obviously any object with mass will have at least some
>gravity. But what is it about mass that causes gravity or curved
>space-time? This is a very mysterious and difficult question to answer.
>Einstein created a fantastic model to observe and predict the effects of
>gravity, but he did little to answer the question of "why?" Saying that
>the expansion of everything causes curved space-time doesn't explain
>anything any better than Einstein.
> Please let me know what you think.
> -Darrell
>

You guys are playing two-dimensional chess on a three dimensional chessboard. You have no chance of winning with your arguments, because you need to examine your assumptions.

Einstein was wrong when he said that space-time was warped by gravity. The gravionic model clearly shows that space is DEFINED by the connections of gravity, or gravions. What are the assumptions when you say that space-time is warped? The assumption is that space-time was some how "straight" to start with. So what you are saying is that there is some kind of space out there that is Euclidean and exists as straight lines and right angles. What I would ask you, is what is that "space" made of before a mass and its gravity gets there? Under the gravionic model, we see that the combined effects of mass and gravity create all space. Mass defines points of reference where connections can be made. Gravions make these connections and thereby define the "space" that exists between the masses. So all space is made by the combined energy of physical systems working together. That is why the equation must be E=gmc² and why we must consider all the energy of a physical system, if we want to understand the whole of the system.

Under the gravionic model, space is defined by the connections of gravions and time is defined as the changing of the connections of gravions. All space is made from the mass outward and this is the essence of relativity. Some connections are more or less "straight" and are called self-gravions, because they determine which masses are parts of the same "thing." Other gravions are looping in structure and "reach out" from each mass and define that space. These are the advertising gravions and are the ones that are traditional known as gravity.

So why has there been this confusion for all these years. The problem comes from the way mankind has learned to solve problems of spatial relationships. Many years ago, Newton came upon some simple math that seemed to describe the actions of gravity very accurately and completely. It was based around the assumption of the Euclidean coordinate system. Newton assumed that nature must have also been using this system. In reality, though, the Euclidean model breaks down as soon as gravity gets very strong and probably would only occur to a species evolving on a tiny little planet in the middle of nowhere, like Earth. It really doesn't even work here on Earth, since the global positioning satellite system must use relativistic calculations to accurately calculate positions.

When mankind wants to solve a problem, he creates a little universe. We call this universe a graph. First, mankind takes out a piece of graph paper and marks the margins to declare the scale. Then he plots points on these graphs and uses mathematical formulae, based on Euclidean concepts, to define the relationship between these points. So when mankind goes to examine nature, he tends to forget that nature doesn't have a big drawer somewhere to get a big piece of graph paper out of. Nature has to keep track of things from each object outward. That is why any viewpoint is as valid as any other to nature. I can "climb" on an atom or quark and pretend I'm still and the rest of the cosmos is moving and be just as "right" as anyone else. Every single physical system defines the rest of the cosmos in relationship to itself.

So space is curved because it is not Euclidean. Since gravions create the space we know, they create the only path for light to follow. And gravions are just not straight, at least all the time. One could argue that the first gravion between the first two masses of a new universe, would be a straight line. But once you get multiple masses working together, then straight lines go out the door pretty quick. Gravions seem to bend and do all kinds of wonderful tricks. The gravionic model shows that all radiation traveling through space must be contained within the gravitational system. Galaxies don't warp the space between other galaxies and us, they make the space that exists between us and the other galaxies.

And as far a single big bang and the talk of the expansion of the cosmos goes, that just can't even be a possibility in an infinite cosmos. To say that gravity can "know" of everything that exists, at the same time, is to assume that gravity has an infinite speed. The gravionic model shows that gravity has a finite speed (C²) and that only those objects that have connections of gravity between them "know" of each other's presence. Think of it for just a minute. Think of a tiny asteroid the size of a basketball coming from outside of our solar system. Does it yet know anything of the mass of Earth? Probably not. Does it yet know anything about the mass of your body? Probably not. What about the mass of a single electron in your brain? Probably not. But if its path is correct and enough years go by, this rock could, over time, come into the gravitational pull of the planet Earth. Then, and only then, would the rock "know" about the Earth. Only once the first gravionic connections are made between the two bodies, do they actually "know" about each other. If the object crashes into the Earth, then all of its advertising gravion connections would be traded in for self-gravions, as the rock would now be a part of our planet.

So lets go back and look at what Newton and Einstein did. Newton said the cosmos is Euclidean and one can understand the motions of all objects by a simple set of mathematical rules, that assume a true Euclidean situation. Einstein came along and said no, your calculations are not correct. You must "bend" them by a relativistic amount to truly "see" how nature works. Now I come along, and I am saying that space is not Euclidean at all. Space is made by the straight and looping structures shown above in the gravion pictures. Superstring mathematicians are making equations that describe the structures of gravions. But since they leave off the mass, they too don't completely describe nature. What I am suggesting, is that if they will connect the mass, as I have shown is necessary, and then give their equations a propagation rate of C², to match those of nature, and recalculate from the same direction as nature, that they will then be able to have all the "unified" equations that they want. Instead of taking a Euclidean model and bending it to fit nature, just take natures model and calculate with the same limitations that nature has to live by. But for any equation to be real, it must have all aspects of E=gmc² contained within the equation, and this is the main reason that science has so long been without the "completeness" that it deserves.

Your friend,

3/16/99

The Speed of Gravity

To better understand the "speed" of gravity, let's conduct a simple thought experiment. Imagine that you have a giant battery that you have placed on the moon. Lying next to the battery is a wire that goes all the way from the moon to the Earth. What we want to examine, is what happens when we connect the wire to the battery. Under pre-gravionic science, the situation would be explained as thus:

When the wire is connected to the battery (or potential difference), the potential difference is "felt" by the circuit instantaneously while the electrons will only begin to flow at (or near) the speed of light. So again, we see that traditional science is saying that gravity "travels" at an infinite speed, since that is what the word instantaneously means. Therefore, what pregravionic science is assuming, is that gravity "works" outside of time. If gravity exists outside of time, then how is it a part of our "universe?"

Under gravionic science, I would say that once the wire is connected to the battery, the potential difference is felt at the speed of gravity (or C²). Under the gravionic model, every connection between every two masses throughout the total length of the wire, is a connection of gravity. Since electrons have mass and therefore must have gravity, the gravitational system must know about the movement of electrons, and further, must know "when" they are to move, or when a potential difference exists between the two points. Thus, if one could "look" at the wire in imaginary time as the wire is first connected to the potential difference, one would see the gravitational system "update" itself at the speed of gravity. Then the electrons would be allowed to flow, at or near the speed of light, to equalize the difference of potential, as registered by the gravitational system.

Now let's take another example, except this next example is a real world experiment that has already been conducted. I haven't studied the actual experiment, but philosophically, it goes like this: A light beam is split and sent down two different fiber optic cables to two different cities. Then, in one of the cities, the light is affected in some way. At the other city, the other light beam "knows" about the event in the other city, at a speed faster than the speed of light. (By the way, the phenomenon could be used to build a communication system that operates faster than the speed of light, much like the sub space communications of Star Trek, except for the present situation, we would need the two points of communication connected by a fiber optic cable.) So here is how pregravionic science explains this phenomenon:

(none)

Here is how the gravionic model explains the phenomenon: All connections between all masses are connections of gravity that connect and disconnect at the speed of gravity. Since light is only energy and cannot exist as a real thing without the masses that support the gravions at each end (E=gmc²), there must be a series of gravitational connections that exist through the fiber optic cables that connect the two cities. Thus, the light energy at each end "knows" about the other light energy through these series of connections of gravions between the light source and each city. I will predict that once this "speed" is measured, it will be found to be the speed of light squared. If this speed is shown to be a finite speed, then all of modern cosmology evaporates since a single big bang model relies completely on the speed of gravity as being infinite. If the speed of gravity is not infinite, then "all" of the cosmos can not possibly "know" about "all" the cosmos, "at the same time," and a single big bang that contained everything is not a possibility. I challenge all scientist of the world to prove of disprove my projected speed of gravity (C²). If I am right, then the single big bang model must be given up immediately.

It's amazing to me, that in all of modern cosmology, if one considers any number of big bangs, accept a single big bang, then the model doesn't work. If there are no big bangs the model doesn't work. If there are one "big bangs" and the speed of gravity is infinite, the model has a chance. If there are two big bangs, then the model doesn't work. If there are three big bangs then the model doesn't work. And so on, into infinity. I can imagine an infinite number of situations where a single big bang model doesn't work, while my infinite cosmos model takes all of these possibilities into consideration. And they call me crazy. J

Your friend,

signature.gif (1197 bytes)

3/17/99

The Gravionic Model of Physical Systems is

based on the following principles

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) 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 c²

^{Principle #3: Reality is infinite.}

^{Corollary
#1: All parts of nature} cycle.

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

Definition #5: Space is defined as the connections of gravions.

Definition #6: Time is defined as the changing of gravions.

Definition #7: Life is defined as those systems which use gravions to store information about reality.

3/20/99

Logic

Logic

-----Original Message-----
From: craciun george
To: Aaron@micromike.com <Aaron@micromike.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 1999 12:43 PM
Subject: everything = logic = everything

>
>
>
> Hi! I'm Craciun Madalin George, 22, romanian, I am writing
> to you in hope you would be interested in my discovery.
> to make some sense out of this I'll start with: Einstein
> spent his last years trying to discover a theory which
> unites all laws of physics(forces of nature ) in 1 theory=
> theory of everything, as you know some scientists think that a
> near answer to that is the string theory.
> I believe I discovered the right(correct) theory :
> the theory of logic = the theory which unites(makes,proves)
> all laws of physics (forces of nature) = the theory of
> everything
>
>
> theory of logic
>
> -=- +=+
> (- -) = -
> (+ -) = -
> (- +) = +
> (+ +) = +
>
>symbol "-" means (links) wrong = incorrect = negative =
>changes any subject.
> "+" means (links) right =correct = pozitive = keeps
>the subject = doesn't change the subject.
>
> logic = o = circle = + = - = infinite
>
>my webpage is at
>http://theory-of-everything.com
>

Dear Craciun,

Thank you for a thought-provoking letter. Let me see if I can explain things from my point of view.

Part of the problem 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 very precise, since 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. What I have said for a very long time, is that 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. So 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? As I said earlier, 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, truth or false, false must be the same as NOT true. Thus the first truth table evolves as such:

Case1	NOT
T	F	Case1 is true so the result must be false
F	T	Case1 is false so the result must be true

This very concept lies at the heart of all computer systems, as this represents the basic storage unit of the computer, the bit. 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 single concept as the basis for their operation. 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. So all physical reactions must involve the connection 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, but that is another story.

Let us examine George Boole's logic a little further. The next concept we have is the concept of 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. Thus we would build a truth table for the logical concept of OR like this:

case1	case2	OR
T	T	T	One is true or two is true, then the conditions are met and therefore the result is true
T	F	T	One is true or two is true, then the conditions are met and therefore the result is true
F	T	T	One is true or two is true, then the conditions are met and therefore the result is true
F	F	F	One is not true and two is not true so the result is not true or false

The next truth table is the AND truth table. In this situation, both parts must be true for the result to be true.

case1	case2	AND
T	T	T	One is true and two is true so the result is true
T	F	F	One is true and two is false so the result is false
F	T	F	One is false and two is true so the result is false
F	F	F	One is false and two is false and the result is not true or false

From these three concepts springs every gate in every computer ever made. 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 knows the meaning of the words "not," "and," and "or."

Now let's get back to your letter and see if we can make some sense out of what you are saying. If you are saying that everything (all of nature) follows Boolean logic, I would agree with you, with the possible exception of some human beings that I know. J Nature does follow Boolean logic when it comes to the connections of gravity. The gravionic model has clearly been developed with Boolean logic in mind, since I have earned my living the last twenty plus years by solving logical problems in computer systems built around Boolean logic. So if you want to say that everything is logical, I guess that I would have to agree.

Next you mention Einstein's search for a theory of everything and the fact that some superstring mathematicians think they can provide a theory of everything by just using the shape of gravions. If you have read the preceding discussions, then you will see that I don't think they can describe "everything" by just using gravity. My first principle clearly states that the minimum condition for existence is identity and relationship. Thus the unifying equation is E=gmc², which merely states that the energy of any real physical system is distributed between the mass and the gravity. So I have already stated that I don't think superstring mathematicians will be able to describe "everything" when they are only using one component and ignoring completely the other component necessary. I have tried to write to them, and none have yet responded to my pleas. If a good superstring mathematician would just listen to me for a couple of hours, I think we could get the mathematics started that would describe nature the way that nature describes itself, but that is another story, too.

The problem that I think you have with your logic is that you are mixing several different types of logic within the same logical problem. As I look at your truth table, I find that it doesn't match the logical OR or the logical AND truth tables. Thus I don't know what relationship it is supposed to show. And further, when you define each of your symbols, you give each multiple meanings, which leads to the confusion about the logic. Therefore, since your logic is not Boolean and since I can't figure out logic that exactly matches your truth table, I must assume that you are confused about these different kinds of logic. I will be the first to admit that I may be wrong. You may have discovered something very important, and I might not yet be able to recognize the importance of what you say. So even though I will still follow Boolean logic, I implore you to not give up on your ideas. Our world is made stronger by every varied viewpoint that we can find. I first conceived the Philosophy of Space and Time over twenty years ago, and because I met so much discouragement, I chose not to pursue it for two decades. Now I realize that every new opinion is important and necessary. So I would encourage you to study Boolean and other logic, and to learn what others think about these important subjects, but never give up your own ideas and never give up on how you see the world. What you think can be important to this world.

Your friend,

signature.gif (1197 bytes)

2/26/99

Infinite Child

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.

Back to the Top

A license to use pictures and text can be purchased for a nominal fee at: www.thegravitystore.com

ľmike's philosophy ľmik'e cosmology Martian Chronicle Sites Overview

NASA contact page

Questions or comments? contacts: Aaron@micromike.com web pages mike@micromike.com. content