The Philosophy of Space and Time

This study began in the early 1970’s as an undergraduate project at Texas Tech University. My desire was to learn the "essence" of nature so that I might understand the physical systems that I saw around me. When I started this project, my assumption was that I only needed to research the material and write a report. It was some time before I realized that the "essence" I sought was known by no man. I soon learned that Einstein also had searched for this "essence" and died without finding an answer. I learned that what I sought was called a unified field equation, but more than an equation, I wanted a way of "looking" at nature. I wanted to be able to see nature and understand how it works. This paper is the result of the search for the essence of nature.

The purpose of the philosophy of space and time is to define reality. I will attempt to define what characteristics are required for something to exist or to be considered real. The arguments start within philosophy but soon reach out to physics and the other sciences. The process I have used is to think about the basics of existence so as to determine what are the requirements of being considered "real" within our universe. I have used my imagination to try to visualize the "essence" of nature and to try to determine the minimum requirements nature would need to build the structures we see around us. Since I believe my thoughts are real, then any system I describe must account for all physical events, including human thought.

What I am trying to accomplish in this paper is to prove my points by using philosophical analysis. This means I will try to make arguments that are universal in nature and would apply to all things that exist throughout the Cosmos, all things that I can imagine, and all observations of natural systems made by myself in particular and by science in general. In the formation of the Gravionic Model of Physical Systems, I have used many "hints" that nature has given me in the physical systems which I have observed. The gravionic model of physical systems is based on both philosophy and on evidence from the physical world.

The Philosophy of Space and Time is based on several simple concepts. Each of these concepts will be expressed as a principle or a corollary. A principle represents a single statement which I believe is true and fundamental in the understanding of the concept of existence. It is a statement which remains true without regard to any other conditions. If it is true here on the Earth, then it should be true anywhere in our galaxy, or any other galaxy throughout the Cosmos. A corollary represents something I believe to be a direct result of accepting the principle and is something I claim applies to nature itself. Principles and corollaries will each be discussed and arguments in favor of the principle or corollary will be expressed.

Each of these concepts will be explored, but with the realization that all systems of logic are based on assumptions. The difference between an assumption and a principle is that I am willing to defend my principles with logical arguments. I am not willing to argue the assumptions, although if you follow my reasoning all the way through this document, I think the assumptions are "proven" by the complete model of physical systems I will propose. If the assumptions I make are incorrect, then the logic which follows is also most likely incorrect. If you find fault with my principles, then you may question any conclusions I draw from those principles. I have made the following assumptions in the process of logically developing the Philosophy of Space and Time:

Assumption #1: There is a reality.

The first assumption we must make in the definition of space and time is the assumption that there is a physical reality. This is one of those basic assumptions that most of us take for granted. However, from the viewpoint of philosophy, we must make this assumption because someone could argue that there is no reality. The problem could be argued forever and never proved by either side, so I take the approach that the best way to look at things is to look at them in a manner which proves most useful to us. If we decided to assume that there is not a reality, then science and all learning would be dead, since we would never have the foundation upon which to build a logical definition of reality.

Assumption #2: We can know reality.

Much has been made over time about the ability of man to know reality or to even prove his own existence. From a practical standpoint, we can argue forever that we don’t exist or that everything we see is part of some giant’s dream, or any number of other philosophical arguments. However, that doesn’t seem to be a productive line of thought. We all assume that we exist everyday. We go about our business and live our lives based on the assumption that we each exist and that the world we see around us also exists. Our every action indicates that we assume we can know the world around us. We learn from our existence and modify our behavior based on the assumption that reality is constant and that we can know what is real. Rather than fight a battle with no end, I will just assume that we exist and that the world around us is knowable. However, from the standpoint of logic, my assumptions must be presented out in the open so that all who read this know what things I have assumed.

Assumption #3: Reality is the same throughout the Cosmos.

Basically this assumption is made by all scientist in everything that they do. All of science relies on the fact that if I perform an experiment under certain conditions, any other scientist can perform the same experiment under the same local conditions any where else on the planet and can expect to get the same results. All of science would crumble without this basic assumption.

Principle #1: Reality (or existence) requires identity and relationship.

What I want to accomplish in this section is to prove that the minimum condition for existence is identity and relationship. This is important because I believe that we must consider both the mass and gravity of any thing which we want to call real. If philosophically, I can prove that identity and relationship are required for something to exist and I can prove that mass represents identity and gravity represents relationship, then I can prove that mass and gravity do represent two aspects of the same thing and therefore must be considered together. This concept is the founding argument for the unified field equation I will present shortly.

So let us revert to pure philosophy. You are a part-time God and you have to create a universe. What must you have to accomplish this task? What is the minimum requirement? I want to examine two situations to look further into these questions. First I want to imagine making a static universe and study its requirements and then I want to move to a dynamic universe and see what motion does to our problem.

In order to make a universe (or reality), it seems to me the main job that reality would have to accomplish is to keep track of everything that exists and to know how those things relate to one another. If two things were to crash into one another, they would each have to "know" that it happened. For those who believe in God, God would have to know. Nature must "know" what is happening so reality can be constant for all observers. So let’s examine what we would have to do to keep track of things which exist. To do that, we need to discuss a little about coordinate systems or frameworks of reference.

The concept of frameworks is critical to an understanding of this aspect of the Philosophy of Space and Time. The very definition of space must in some way be related to a framework or some method of keeping track of things. Einstein said that gravity actually warped space and changed its shape. I propose that gravity does not just warp space but actually defines it.

The traditional or human way of organizing things within a framework is to first draw a three dimensional frame with a line which represents the three axis of movement. Once the framework is drawn, we can place a point within the framework and represent that point by how far the point is away from the center of the framework in each of the three dimensions. This center spot represents a frame of reference for any points we want to place within the framework. The framework is arbitrary. We just assign its position to fit the problem we are attempting to solve. The important thing to remember, is that in this example, we have defined the point based on its relationship to the framework and we designated the framework before we placed the dot within it. (This represents intuitive evidence that Principles #1 and #2 are true.) We have defined this point from the outside in. In other words, we define the framework and show the relationship of that point to the framework. The framework and the dot would look as follows:              

 By our example, we see that the minimum necessary condition for existence is an identifying point and a relationship to the coordinate system. I can think of no system which can exist without meeting this minimum requirement. Now that doesn’t mean that there is no such system, only that I can’t imagine it. As with all my arguments, if you have a counter, I would be glad to evaluate it to learn its affect upon my model. Now let us continue with our little reality we are building.

If we wanted to keep track of a second point, we would plot it within our framework and carefully mark its position relative to the axis of the framework. If we wanted to know the relationship between the two points, we could perform a mathematical operation which would tell us how the two are related. You can see that the little universe we have created is already getting complicated.                                                            

 Now start moving one or both of the points and see how complicated this one little framework can become. Now imagine an infinite number of points moving in every possible direction and you have an appreciation for what reality has to accomplish. Every point must be kept track of as well as how that point relates to the rest of the cosmos.

Now let’s examine this situation further. Would it make any sense to have a point outside the framework? If the point doesn’t exist within the framework, then by our definition it doesn’t exist. To exist or be real, we must not only have the point but we must make sure that point has a place within the universe that we have created. That means the framework is as important as the point itself and is actually a part of the definition of the point. For the point to exist in our reality, it must have the identity of itself as well as its relationship to other things which exist.

This line of thought is critical in the understanding of the Philosophy of Space and Time. Scientist and lay people alike must understand that existence requires both identity and relationship. In the real world, these two aspects are fulfilled by mass and gravity. Mass represents the identity of each real particle while gravity represents its relationship to the rest of the universe through a series of connections. No point can exist within our little framework without its relationship just as mass can not exist in the real world without a definition of how that mass relates to the rest of the universe. Mass and gravity are two aspects of the same thing and both are required to make something real or to define existence.

Nature has the same problems we have stated above, except that nature never has a chance to deal with only one point. There are many points and nature must have some way of keeping track of where all the points are. I will propose in this paper, that nature uses a different approach than does mankind. In nature, each point defines the rest of the cosmos in relation to itself. There is no absolute coordinate system in space by which nature can directly relate all the points of the cosmos. Each point in the cosmos has to reach out and define its own position in relation to all the other points that exist. This is the reason that calculations concerning time and space are always relative to a particular position.

To review, the basic job of reality is to keep track of where everything is and to determine how each thing relates to other things that exist within its area of involvement. It makes no sense to say that something exists without saying where it exists. Therefore, the first principle states that existence requires both mass and gravity. Philosophically, mass represents identity or self for things that exist. Gravity represents the organization of the Cosmos, or in other words, the desire of all things to be connected to the each other and to know how they relate to each other. You know from your own experiences that gravity pulls things together. For those of you who believe in God, one might say that everything that God makes has the ability to be connected. All things that exist come with a built-in ability to be a part of the whole.

Corollary #1: Reality is composed of energy which represents itself as mass and gravity.

Now return to our imaginary universe above. I’m sure you did pretty good imagining the single point in a coordinate system. You probably did OK when I told you to add a second point. But when I tell you to imagine an infinite number of points moving in every direction, I bet you have trouble keeping track of everything! I have shown that identity and relationship are required to exist. But just having those two would make for a very boring universe, because nothing would be moving. To have movement, we must have energy. So to make a complete universe, we would not only have to have mass and gravity, but also energy. How does nature handle the problem?

Nature "makes" both mass and gravity by using energy, so all real things must have aspects of all three to exist. Einstein recognized that mass and energy were interchangeable. He couldn’t figure out how gravity was related. Now there is no one who respects Einstein as much as I do, but the main mistake he made was in assuming the forces which hold all things together are something other than gravity. What I am saying is that gravity and energy are also interchangeable and in fact, all one needs to create everything that we know is the three basic components: mass, gravity and energy. We need mass to represent identity, gravity to represent the relationship, and energy to allow for movement. I believe that nature is made from a simple set of components and rules which result in an infinite number of possibilities.

Corollary #2: Gravity is the one and only force necessary to "hold" mass together.

If gravity represents relationship and has the role of keeping track of everything, then it must have a dual nature. It must not only be able to draw things in but also keep them the right distance apart. The first job gravity must accomplish is to be able to reach out to other things and pull them in. But it must also be able to hold them at the proper distance when they come close together, since no two points could occupy the same space and be considered separate points (See Corollary # 6).

Science has spent much time defining all the different kinds of bonds and forces. What I am saying is that we only need mass, gravity and energy to make a universe. All of the bonds currently being studied by science are different forms of gravity connections between masses. Everything is made by mass and gravity connections and the energy which is contained within those systems.

If we imagine the universe shortly after it begins, we see that all we would have is elementary particles and their gravity which would have condensed out of the very "hot" energy which exists at the beginning of time. All things which exist must be made from these basic ingredients. Gravity is therefore not just attractive but also must be responsible for holding all mass at the "proper" distance. All bonds that form between masses must be connections of gravity.

If we look at all of nature, we see cycles of compression. Gravity pulls things together, always to limits. Then as time progresses and gravity increases in a particular system, new levels of compression are reached until at the end, the compression reaches its limit and is released in some way, usually to go get compressed again somewhere else in space and time. Since all things that exist are made from mass, gravity and energy, the cycles of compression represent different ratios of energy as shared between mass and gravity. New things have most of their energy within their mass and some within their gravity. Old things have most of their energy within their gravity and some within their mass. All reactions in nature represent the exchange of energy between systems with different ratios of energies as they strive to reach equilibrium.

As an example of a cycle of compression, take a star. The gravity pulls material together to form the star and provides the energy to start the star’s "fire." Smaller elements are combined to make larger elements and the star over time becomes more compressed. Eventually it reaches a stage where the energy within is more than the gravity can hold and the star explodes. As time goes on, different levels of compression are reached within different stars until black holes are formed. All of nature goes through these different levels. I say it starts and ends with gravity.

As another example, look at the rocks of the Earth. By looking at different kinds of rocks, one can see the different levels of compression. Take sand and compress it lightly and you get sandstone that you break apart with your hands. Compress it further and it makes a very hard rock. All of nature shows us different levels of compression.

Corollary #3: Gravity is represented by individual connections of gravity called gravions.

All gravity is represented by individual discrete connections of gravity which are called gravions. A gravion exists for each and every elementary particle in the Cosmos. The study of gravions and their properties is called Gravionics. At least some gravions are described by superstring mathematics.

If gravity is represented by individual connections, then how could such a system work?

The Gravionic Model of Physical Systems

Gravions are the basic connections of gravity. Every expression of gravity is through gravions. Gravions connect all levels of matter from elementary particles through atoms, molecules, planets, suns, galaxies and black holes.

If we think of gravity philosophically, we see that gravity has the job of establishing order, of deciding the relationship between different objects. Therefore gravions need only have the desire to "know" the rest of the cosmos. If we start at the beginning of a new universe when the first elementary particles are forming, we need only give gravions the task of trying to establish order to see how they can begin to build an entire universe. As each particle materializes out of energy, its gravion energy must also materialize as a definition of space. The particle and it’s gravion have a "desire" to know its position in relation to the rest of existence. Each particle reaches out through it’s gravion to touch other particles. As they reach out and touch each other, gravity pulls the particles together. When they come close enough, gravity holds them at a set distance and in the process uses the excess energy to generates another gravion which acts in concert between the two particles, essentially allowing them to operate as a single entity. Gravity continues to "pool" its resources as more and more particles come together and form more and more complex relationships.

Although there are several different kinds of gravions, the best way to think of a gravion in general is to imagine a round hollow rubber band that exists between two masses. This type of gravion would represent the gravions which draw things together. Once the particles come together, a gravion would look more like a hollow rubber band which has been compressed until it is solid. Of course, when the second gravion forms, it represents another gravion which is more like the first in that it reaches out "looking" for the rest of the universe. I believe this secondary gravion illustrates the "looping" structures that have been defined by superstring mathematics.

Another way to think of a gravion is like a set of Tinker ToysÔ . There are two main aspects of Tinker Toys: the round thing with holes (hubs) and the sticks which connect the hubs together. Mass would be represented by the hubs and gravions would be represented by the sticks. Now the problem that exists in current science is that everyone thinks of these as two different things. If we let the hubs represent an elementary particle, then the stick would represent a single gravion. Since we must always think of mass and gravity together, the most elementary system must consist of a single round thing with a single stick in it. Science has made the mistake of thinking of the round thing without the stick attached. That is probably all right in certain circumstances, but to view any system in its entirety, one must view the stick as always attached. The mass must have a connection to the rest of the universe. Under my model, it makes no sense to ever think of a hub by itself. When you think of a single particle, it must have at least one gravion to connect it to the rest of existence.

To understand the situation better, let us consider an elementary particle sitting alone in space. For this thought experiment, visualize a dot with a fuzzy sphere around it. The dot would represent the mass while the fuzzy sphere would represent the gravity. Notice that the gravity sphere is small in comparison to the mass sphere. This merely indicates that most of the energy of this first system is stored in the mass and very little of the energy is stored in the gravity. This will change as the particle "ages" over time, because gravity will continually "pull" energy out of the mass so that in the end, the particle will have virtually no energy stored as mass and most of the energy stored as gravity. But in this beginning system, let’s imagine this first particle as having almost all of the total energy stored in the mass and a small portion stored in the gravity of the system.                                                  

 In this picture, I am showing the mass as a sphere and it’s gravity as a sphere around it, but I don’t know what its shape in reality might be. The particles could actually be spheres or they may have definite shapes in three dimensions. This is one of the areas where I believe mathematics may be of help, but the actual three dimensional shape of elementary particles alone in space is not known to me at this time. Realize that both the mass and the gravity must be created together since they are parts of the same thing. Also realize that this first system doesn’t have a gravion yet. It must combine with another particle and it’s gravity before the first gravion is formed.

Now imagine another particle very near the first. The role of gravity is to reach out and touch the rest of the cosmos. But at this point there is no gravion to reach out. For the first gravion to form, the particles must get close enough so that the gravity around each particle touches the other. The two particles would appear as  follows:

 As the motion of the two particles brings them next to each other, they each have the ability to make a gravion. As their gravity touches each other, gravity takes the path of least resistance and they begin forming a common gravion between themselves. The gravity reaches out from each particle and finally makes a connection. This connection would be like the hollow rubber band connection that I described earlier. Realize that this connection would occur very quickly but we are slowing things down to better understand what is happening.

To help visualize this action, think of two drops of water next to each other on a table and picture how they come together. Under my model, the force which attracts the water droplets together is gravity, so the coming together of these two drops is similar to the action of gravity around an elementary particle, except we are viewing the water in two dimensions instead of three. Also, the water droplets are the result of millions of gravion connections, while the elementary particle I have asked you to imagine represents the most basic "flowing" of gravity which is actually "creating the space" to form the first gravion. When the water flows together, it makes one drop. But since each mass represents a unique particle, the two particles can not "flow" together and can not occupy the same space, like the water, so the gravity must go outward from the pair. With a gravion now forming between the two particles, the system would look as follows:           

 The first purpose of gravity is to pull things together so as to organize them. The next thing we would see is the gravion pulling the two masses together. The gravion is like a rubber band which has been attached between the two particles. The gravion connection contains shared energy which tries to bring the two particles together. When the two finally come together, the nature of the gravion changes. Before the two came together we had two particles, each with its own little bit of gravity. As the particles come together, they now have a single gravion between them and another which is "pushed out" from the pair. This pair can now proclaim its strength to the rest of the universe through this second gravion. Since the two masses cannot occupy the same space, they can only come so close to each other. Gravity cannot "push" it’s energy back into the masses, so the energy must expand outward to form the second gravion.

The point of connection between the energy stored as mass and the energy stored as gravity acts like a valve in that it restricts the flow of energy between the two. Each part (mass and gravity) wants to maintain their respective energies and therefore the energy of the gravity cannot easily be pushed through the "valve" and into the mass so the excess energy is pushed outward to form a second gravion. The main point is that the total gravity is now shared between the two points and the two can now act as a single entity.

As gravions connect and bring different particles together, the gravions gain new abilities as well as sharing their energy. After the two come together, we have two gravions formed: one between the two particles which holds them together and one which is available to be used to draw other particles into the whole or to allow connection to other thinks that exist.  The completed system witht the second gravion might look as follows:

 The gravion which now holds the two together would represent a "self" gravion. Part of gravity’s job is to determine what things are self and which things are not self. The strong force represents the expression of one or more of these gravions. So when this first gravion forms which holds the two together, it gives the two particles an aspect of self. The two particles can act as one because they are now bound together.

The other gravion which loops out is called an advertising gravion. This gravion’s job is to advertise the strength of the combined energy of the particles to the rest of its world. This gravion works by "reaching out" and defining the space for the combined particle. When this gravion "touches" another gravion of similar type, the two link and make an extended straight gravion which will now attempt to bring the two together, if it has enough energy. This is the type of gravion that modern science has associated with gravity in the classical sense.

All of nature works by the different combinations of these connections. As anything moves, it is continually changing gravion connections with other objects. The looping gravions reach out. When they touch other looping gravions, they connect. If there is not enough energy within the connection to hold the two together, they break and the looping gravions return to their looping shape. If there is enough energy within the gravion connection, the two parts are drawn together and make a new entity by forming another self gravion. Everything we know can be made by the variations of this process.

How many different kinds of mass are there? My model doesn’t care, but modern science has said that mass doesn’t just represent itself as a single entity. Science now suspects there are 6 different kinds of elementary particles and maybe each of these comes in three "flavors." Each of these must have its own ability to form different straight gravions and the looping gravions formed from the different combinations would probably also be different. One of the first jobs of gravionics is to name and describe the different types of gravions which are created by the different combinations of elementary particles. As I calculate the situation, that would mean there are at least 21 types of gravions, although all combinations may not be productive in the real world and there could be an almost infinite number of variations of gravions.

As the process continues of organizing larger and more complex particle groups, more and more complex gravions form to make the varied bonds needed. Slowly the basis for all matter is established as electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, and molecules are formed. Realize that every bond that forms is a gravion connection between masses and is describable by superstring mathematics. Also, realize that gravity had to be there every step of the way to insure an orderly formation of the universe.

Gravions are described mathematically by equations which have become known as the superstring equations. I am not a mathematician, but what little I know about superstring equations, it seems to me that they exactly represent the characteristics I "see" when I look at gravions. Some gravions are straight and some are looping. The looping structures I call "advertising" gravions, because that seems to be their function. They advertise each particle in the universe, stating to the rest of the universe how strong the gravity of the object is. I think that the straight gravions generate the looping ones when the straight ones are compressed as particles are drawn together. Also, superstring equations seem to show the sine wave structure of light as it travels "down" the "superstring."

Corollary #4: All energy in the real world transfers through gravions.

This corollary has been the hardest for me to visualize and probably to defend. However, even if my intellect can’t quite grasp how all energies are transferred through gravions, I have decided to go with my "gut instinct" on this particular issue. If I am later proved wrong, then I will be happy because I will have stimulated the conversation that led to the truth and the truth is what all of us should be about.

If we revisit our imaginary system we realize this entire system has been built from elementary particles and their gravions. It seems there must be a connection before energy can be exchanged. If I am right, then all energy travels through this vast ever-changing connection of gravions we call our universe and this universe is "fueled" by the constant but slow exchange of energy from mass to gravity. In the beginning of a universe, most of the energy is stored in mass. At the end of a universe, deep within a black hole, most of the energy is stored as gravity.

Light and all of its different representations, would be one of the things which would have to travel through gravions. Einstein said that light would be affected by gravity and that was later proved to be true by experiment. I have always believed, therefore, that light must have some aspect of gravity, or it wouldn’t be affected. Now I believe that light travels "down/through/in/around" a gravion. The gravion thus determines the structure of space (which is the accumulation of all gravions) and "guides" light down the correct path so that light responds to the gravity of any mass that it comes in contact with. I think that all energy must be "contained" within gravions in order to "know" where gravity would have the energy go.

The problem I have is imagining all the light (and I use the word light to mean all electromagnetic radiation) cruising throughout the cosmos and realizing that it must be contained within gravions. Electromagnetic radiation is affected by gravity so this energy must be traveling "within" gravions. Intellectually, it is hard for me to imagine that when I look up at the night sky, every speck of light that reaches my eye, has traveled through one or more gravions to reach me. How many connections must there be? But even though my intellect has problems dealing with this situation, my intuition has told me to go with the concept that all energy in the real world transfers through gravions.

All of chemistry and physics ultimately is reduced to the study of the changing of gravion connections and the subsequent transfer of energy. These small physical systems are much easier for me to imagine than electromagnetic radiation systems. Every larger "particle" has many connections of gravity. Some are self and some are advertising. As things move, advertising gravions touch and determine which system has the most energy and which the least. Energy flows through the gravions until equilibrium is reached. Heat transfers are a perfect example of how energy flows between systems through their gravion connections.

I must observe that my model only describes energy transfers in the real world. Most of the Cosmos is made of mass and connections of gravity and the energy which is contained within those systems. However, I have yet to address energy transfers shortly after a big bang when there is yet no gravion connections. Also, I don’t describe what exists "between" gravions. Any model of science is designed to answer the most questions with the simplest model. No model is ever perfect and there are still many questions to be resolved within my model.

Corollary #5: The distribution of energy in any real system is represented by the equation E=gmc².

Why did I decide on the formulae of E=gmc² as the unified field equation? I have spent much time thinking about this equation and the possibility that it is right or wrong. Einstein had said that mass was made of energy. It seemed obvious to me that gravity was also made of energy. Just wait until the next time some object is dropped on your head and you will realize there is energy in gravity. Einstein said that E=mc². He didn’t know how gravity fit in the scheme of things. Since I have felt for a long time that both mass and gravity were made of energy, I originally just looked at Einstein’s equation and asked myself where would one put gravity in this equation. There are only two sides of the equation, so it wasn’t hard to put gravity next to the mass, where it belongs. Now the equation is E=gmc² and gravity is included.

The next reason I selected this equation comes from the philosophy that mass and gravity are two aspects of the same thing and therefore must be "together" in the equation. To exist in the real world, any "thing" must have a mass aspect to show its identity and a gravity aspect to represent its relationship to other real things. I placed g beside the m to indicate the relationship between the energy stored as mass and the energy stored as gravity.

When trying to find the essence of anything in nature, it is usually productive to look at situations where we can isolate the system in question to try to determine its basic nature. For the formulae of E=gmc², I would like to look at two points within the evolution of a universe that I feel represent a crux or a place to see things more clearly.

Let’s take the example of shortly after the beginning of a universe and look at the first elementary particle and its gravion. Picture it as a single particle and its gravion (hub with a stick). We will assume that the first particle to form is the smallest elementary particle that can exist. Therefore, we will define the mass of the particle to be 1, and the gravity of the first gravion to be 1 (m would therefore be defined as the mass of the smallest particle that can exist and g would be defined as the gravity of the smallest gravion that can exist). If we now look at the energy stored within that first system, according to my equation, the energy would be equal to c², since 1 times anything is still that thing (E=1x1xc² or E=c²). So what this means is that the energy of this first system would be c² and that energy would be divided between the mass and its gravion. The math is not that important. What is important is to realize that the energy of any real system is distributed between its mass and its gravity.

In this elementary system, the mass contains most of this energy and the gravion contains the remainder. New particles start as almost all mass and wind down through time to become almost all gravity. Philosophically, the beginning of time for any universe begins with a big bang. This represents a time of new beginnings with no organization. As this energy cools to form the first elementary particles, most of the energy is used to make mass with a small portion going to gravity. As time passes, energy is slowly converted from mass to gravity. At the end of time, for those particles, the mass is eventually converted to gravity (or total order) in a Black Hole and the process of time begins a new cycle.

What is important to realize is that in any system of nature, part of the energy is contained within the mass and the rest is contained within the gravity and that existence requires all three components. Imagine the hub and its stick. Part of the energy would be in the hub and part would be in the stick. Most of the energy in our world, I think, would be in the stick, because sticks probably take more energy to make than do the round things and because the material that makes up our universe has been around a long time and is therefore fairly far along in the conversion of mass to gravity.

Now suppose we have the second particle form and unite with the first. We now have 2 masses and 2 gravions, so the total energy of the system would now be 2x2xc². For any system made up of these particles and their mass, the amount of energy within the system would be the number of particles involved times the number of gravions involved times the cosmic constant of c².

Now reality is not quite this simple since there seems to be 6 elementary particles, each of different mass and therefore of different gravity. If we take the second smallest particle and measure its mass relative to the first particle, we might have a value of 1.1 and its gravity would also be larger, say 1.2. We could now repeat the experiment above and calculate the amount of energy within the system. As we add different particles and their gravions, the rules would remain the same, except for the different values of mass and gravity. As you can probably see, we can now measure the energy of any system by simply knowing the number and types of particles and the number and types of gravions which are contained within the system and multiplying that value by the speed of light squared.

In the real world, it is often difficult to say how many particles and how many gravions are involved within a system and how much of the energy is stored within the mass and how much is stored within the gravity. If we look at the first elementary particle and its gravion, the calculation is simple. But, if we look at the same particle imbedded somewhere within the Earth, the situation is more complicated since that one particle may have many connections and is under the influence of the accumulated gravions of the planet. Also, the ratio of energy between mass and gravity is constantly changing as physical reactions take place in the real world. Systems in the real world don’t generally exist in isolation from other systems and this becomes another factor which makes it hard to determine the total energy of the system.

If we look at the energy contained within the Earth, we can easily see that E=mc² just doesn’t work. It doesn’t take into account the energy stored in the gravity of the planet. But now, under my model, gravity is in the equation. We could exactly measure the energy of our planet by the formulae E=gmc², if the planet were not connected to the rest of our universe. In nature, our planet has gravion connections to the sun and the moon and many other things. In the real world, it gets very hard to say how much mass and how many connections are involved in any one system because of the vast number of connections which gravity makes within real systems. Also, if energy is traveling between the sun and the earth, to which system does it belong?

Another crux appears at the time of a Big Bang Event (BBE). This Event marks the beginning of a new universe and is discussed in more detail in my paper "Some Philosophical Observations on Cosmology." Basically, that paper states that all particles in the real world will eventually end up in a black hole and that black holes will continue to merge and collect material until which time its mass reaches an effective value of zero and the black hole then is converted into another BBE. The eventual fate of all mass is to be drawn into a black hole and the eventual fate of all black holes is to have its contents recycled as a BBE.

How much energy is released during that Event? The entire Event seems to be a large equation with mass and gravity going in on one side and energy coming out on the other side. It seems obvious that the energy release would be equal to the number of particles times the number of gravions times the cosmic constant of c². If we look at a BBE, we see that going into the Event is a system that is composed of almost all mass and gravity. Within the black hole, there would be no free energy, since almost all of the energy would be "used" to make mass and gravion connections. Once the Event occurs, all we have is "free" energy. All mass and gravity are gone. It seems obvious that the energy contained within the gravity and mass have now been released. The calculation? E=gmc².

The next place it seems obvious that E=gmc² represents the amount of energy within real systems, is when we look at living systems. All my life I have wondered what the difference is between something which is alive and something which is not. While working my way through Texas Tech University as an orderly for a nursing home, I once was with a man who died while I held his hand. What is the difference between the time he was alive and the time he was dead? According to my gravionics model of physical systems, live things have more energy within their gravions than non-living systems. Life represents a particular situation where "m" can stay the same, but the "g" of the system can vary depending on the health of the being. It may take awhile before mankind can measure the energy within gravions, but I am confident that those measurements will show that live things have more energy within their gravions than non-living things.

Since gravions can exist in different energy levels, they have the necessary characteristics to be the dynamic RAM (Random Access Memory) of life. Therefore I propose that all life adheres to the formula E=gmc² by using different energy levels within its gravions to store information about the world around itself.

If the same formula works to show the energy of any system from an elementary particle and its gravity to a black hole and its gravity to a living being and its gravity, then that would seem to me to be "universal" in that it applies to everything that we call real.

Corollary #6 No two masses can occupy the same space.

If we understand that each particle that comes into existence brings its own gravity (or space) with it, we should understand that every particle that exists is therefore unique from every other particle which exists. One of the reasons each particle is unique is that it has a unique set of connections to the real world which define its existence and position. Thus, no two particles could ever occupy the same space, since they would have identical connections and therefore be the same particle.

Principle #2: Any coordinate system must define itself faster than the fastest thing which moves within the system.

The next major principle is that any framework of reference (gravity) must be defined before, and must act faster than, the fastest thing which moves within the framework. Light moves at the speed of c and therefore gravity must establish itself at a speed which is faster.

In our example above, we defined the coordinate system before we placed points within it and before we made the points move. Nature has the same problem. It must define the coordinate system before anything within it can exist or move. Since the coordinate system comes from each particle that exists, the coordinate system must be able to establish and maintain itself faster than anything that moves within it. Therefore gravions must propagate, connect, and disconnect at a speed greater than the speed of light. c is the speed of light and represents the maximum speed which anything can move in the mass portion of our world. If the coordinate system were not faster than the fastest movement within it, then contradictions would occur and gravity just doesn’t seem to make mistakes. Experiments have shown that paired particles, when physically separated in space, are able to communicate at a speed faster than the speed of light. I would propose that these particles are connected by gravions and that these experiments offer proof that gravions operate at a speed which is faster than the speed of light. Therefore, gravity must always act faster than the fastest thing which moves within it.

Corollary #1 Gravions propagate, connect, and disconnect at the speed of c².

Now if gravions must form at a speed greater than the speed of light, what are the possibilities?

Gravions could propagate at any speed between c+1 and infinity. Most of my life I have thought that gravity propagated at an infinite speed. However, philosophically an infinite propagation speed poses problems that now bother me. If gravions propagate at an infinite speed then that would mean they propagate outside of time and that just doesn’t seem possible to me.

If we examine the real world, we see where limits are placed on us by the physical systems around us. Light and all matter has a limit in how fast it can travel. If almost all that we know has limits, then I suspect that gravity also has limits. If we assume that gravity can not propagate at infinity, how fast does it propagate? It has been suggested that c+1 would be fast enough and I can not disprove that suggestion mathematically. However, for all of the systems I propose, I run models in my mind to simulate what is happening. c+1 might be fast enough for some systems, but it just wouldn’t work for most systems. The gravion would not arrive in time to exactly predefine the situation and I feel would allow contradictions to occur. Since contradictions do not seem to occur, gravity must propagate fast enough to eliminate that possibility.

The only other "speed" represented by the unified field equation is c². As I model systems in my mind, that speed seems to be sufficient to allow gravity to "probe" all physical systems and make "decisions" about which reaction is to take place at which time. Reality progresses in a two stage nature. First, gravions reach out and identify other gravions nearby. When the proper conditions occur, the gravions connect and energy is exchanged. c² seems to be the ideal candidate, so for now, that is my prediction. My hope is that this question can later be resolved by mathematics and by experimental evidence. Therefore, I propose that gravions propagate at the speed of light squared.

Principle #3: Reality is infinite.

The next principle is that reality must be considered as infinite. Every scientist is making an assumption that reality is finite or infinite, whether he or she realize that fact or not. Many current theories in science seem to assume the Cosmos is finite but the empirical evidence is overwhelming that the cosmos goes on forever in every direction. The latest Hubble experiment is more proof. The Hubble was turned to an "empty" part of the heavens and left there for 10 days. At the end, what did they see? More fully formed galaxies that we didn’t even know existed. I’m positive we could build any size telescope and repeat the experiment in any direction with the same results.

In science, it is beneficial to consider the model which allows the most possibilities and describes the most systems in a consistent manner. Philosophically I can prove that there are things we can not see because of the limitations of the speed of light. If there are things we can not see, then how can we ever make a claim that reality is finite. If there is one thing we can not see, it is just as likely there are an infinite number. A finite Cosmos would be much more limited than an infinite Cosmos. Science should be an optimist and assume that the cosmos has an infinite number of possibilities. Throughout mankind’s rise to awareness, the size of the cosmos in which he considers himself the center, is the only thing which seems to have changed. Science should consider the cosmos as infinite and assume we are not at it’s center.

The assumption of this principle seems to be harmless and not too important to many people, but the implications are very important philosophically. This principle should be at the heart of all scientific thought. Viewing reality as infinite would seem to me the very first assumption that all scientists should make at the beginning of their quest for knowledge. If one holds the view that reality is finite, then I would think that view would limit and constrain ones ability to eventually understand ever more complex ideas. If there are limits, then human kind would eventually learn "everything," and I would think that prospect would represent a very boring future for science in general and mankind in particular.

Most people who believe in God, view God as infinite. If God is infinite, then so wouldn’t his creation be infinite? Most lay people I question, think that the Cosmos goes on forever. But in science, since many scientist only work on a portion of reality as their specialty, they tend to think in finite units. I think that science must begin a true dialog on the subject of infinity because scientific assumptions affect the logic of the scientist.

This assumption of infinity is so basic to the models I present that I almost take it for granted. Through all of my life, I have believed that the Cosmos was infinite and therefore we could never see everything that might exist. I guess others could take the opposite view and propose a model that assumes that we live in a finite world. The current model of cosmology assumes a finite cosmos even though I don’t think most cosmologist have thought carefully about the possibility that the cosmos is infinite. However, if we view the world around us as finite, I feel we limit ourselves in a number of ways.

Viewing the cosmos as finite is much the same as early man declaring that the heavens revolve around the earth. Man always wants to put himself at the center of everything. I don’t know how any scientist could say there is a limit to the Cosmos. It seems much more logical to think of the cosmos as going on forever in both space and time.

Corollary #1: All parts of nature cycle.

If we assume the cosmos is finite and had a finite start, then I guess one would not have to have anything before the beginning. You could just start things out and not have to explain what occurred before you started your universe. It’s funny to me that for so many years, some scientists have chastised religion for basing so much thought on faith. The arguments between the evolutionists and creationists have continued and one of the arguments the evolutionists have given against the creationists is that the creationist’s arguments are based on faith that God just made everything 6000 years ago. But from my perspective, the Cosmologists of the day are proposing the same thing, only they say it all started 16 billion years ago. I like neither position, because I want to know what existed before their "beginnings."

In an infinite cosmos, one would have beginnings and endings to parts of the cosmos (called universes) but that wouldn’t mean the entire cosmos was ending or beginning. I want a model of the cosmos which allows it to continue, even though parts are continually being born and then dying. I propose that the cosmos is infinite and therefore has to have mechanisms in place to keep things going.

Also, as each of us have lived our lives, we have seen cycles in all that we do. People are born, people die. The day changes into night and back to day. The seasons progress as the Earth goes around the sun. The moon causes monthly cycles upon the Earth. Stars are born and die, spewing their contents into space to be used again in another star. Galaxies are born and die. Everywhere we look, nature cycles. It must also cycle in the creation and death of a universe. All things in nature cycle, because nature is infinite.

Conclusions

I believe that the principles as stated in this paper are true and relevant. The philosophy is complete and competent, both within itself, and as compared to the observations science has made about the universe in which we reside. All parts of nature can be explained by a simple model which is consistent from the smallest to the largest of structures and everything in between including living systems and human awareness. The model is consistent across all aspects of science and affects the viewpoint of every scientific study.

I believe that I can now define and form an entire universe by a simple set of definitions.

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.

In summary, my model states that all real things are composed of energy which expresses itself as mass and gravity. Mass cannot exist without gravity, just as gravity cannot exist without mass. Gravions define space and the changing of gravions represents the passage of time. A universe is formed by a BBE. Time and space, for that universe, begin when the first particles after the event begin connecting their gravions. Space is defined by the connections of gravions. Time, for any universe, starts when the first connection is made. It continues until all connections are made in the depths of a black hole, at which point another BBE occurs and time and space begins again. Of course the Cosmos is much larger than any one Event, so at any one "time," one would find universes scattered throughout the cosmos in all stages of evolution. A few we can see, most we cannot. Also, we must remember that material is continually intermixed between universes as time goes on.

Since the unified field equation is E=gmc² and this equation describes the energy within all systems including living systems, life must be the purpose of the Cosmos. If we give gravity the job of bringing order to the very first particles which form after a BBE, I think a case can be made that all we know can be derived from that first desire to know other things that exist. Remember, we are made of gravity and our thoughts are made of gravity and we are not so very different from those first particles, because we too, want to know the rest of the cosmos and how we relate to it. Therefore I think that life is abundant within the Cosmos and that we are the continuation of that process which began many billions of years ago with the combining of the first two elementary particles at the beginning of our universe.

Reality is made of discrete components and their connections. Gravity is digital in nature. I believe that the basic working unit of nature is a pair of particles. Under my model, single elementary particles are not "useful" until they combine and form gravions. Without their gravions, the space that is made by their gravity would be tightly bound to the mass and would not be useful unless another particle actually "touches" the same space. A neutrino might be an example of one such particle.

An electron appears to be a "particle" which is an example of the basic model of paired systems I have described previously. My model would suggest that superconductivity is accomplished when the advertising gravion doesn’t have enough energy to make and break connections with the substance it is traveling over. As the energy is reduced in the electron system, the primal self gravion connection between the two is more important than the advertising gravion produced when the two combined. Therefore, as the energy is reduced in the system, the advertising gravion is sacrificed to keep the self gravion holding the pair together. In a normal system, the electron is making and breaking advertising gravion connections as it travels through a conductor and this process uses energy. In an energy reduced system, the electron doesn’t have the energy to make and break connections, so it travels on the "outside" of the conductor and doesn’t make or break gravion connections and therefore no energy is used in the process. A similar model would explain the passage of helium without friction in low energy situations.

Until my model, science has not known why time always progresses in a single direction. Since my model defines time as the changing of gravions, this problem is much easier to understand. If we view reality as a number of particles (mass) organized by a continually changing set of connections (gravions), then we see that what we perceive as time is the movement of particles and the changing of gravions and the movement of energy between systems.

To understand better why time moves in a single direction, we need to understand the concept of imaginary time. Look at the room around you and imagine all the particles which must exist and all the connections which are changing constantly. Now imagine you could stop the whole thing and capture every particle and every connection in a freeze frame so that you could examine the system. This is imaginary time. Now what you need to visualize next is the process we would call "single stepping" in computers. This process is used to examine one set of instructions at a time. In our time experiment, we would be taking one slice after another, but not going on to the next step until we have had time to view the current time slice. What is important to understand is that not all connections of gravity are possible between slices. Whatever the complete set of rules for gravion connections turns out to be, only certain combinations can take place in the next step because of the limitations of the gravions. Therefore, time passes in a single direction because every time slice is an accumulation of the connections which have been made previously and only certain connections can possibly be made in each new step.

Imaginary time will become important to gravionics and humanity in the calculation of which events are possible in the next time step and which connections are not possible. These calculations will give probabilities of realities yet to come.

My model provides for the resolution for the current conflicts which exist between relativity and quantum mechanics. Einstein developed relativity and held the position that the world was knowable. He was right about that. He thought nothing traveled faster than the speed of light and he was wrong because gravity must "travel" faster than any light which moves within the gravionic system. Einstein didn’t like the uncertainty of quantum mechanics even though quantum mechanics has proved very useful in describing the actions of very small systems.

Philosophically, quantum mechanics is the branch of mathematics and physics which projects probabilities of where one might find certain particles in small systems. It is a part of science that basically says we can never "know" the position of these small particles because if we want to determine their position, we must in some way "touch" them with radiation or mass. My model states that the reason the particles look like a blur to our instruments is because first of all they are not single particles. They are systems composed of two or more particles which are connected by gravions. Each of these particles is moving very fast. But remember, each "particle" is made of two or more particles connected by gravions moving at a speed faster than the speed of light. Even though it may be useful for science to consider these particle pairs as a whole, to view them correctly, we must remember the gravion connections which are not only holding the particles together, but also holding the particle pair to whatever it is attached to. Therefore, some day, I believe we will be able to detect the exact position of any particle once we learn to manipulate individual gravions. Gravions can determine the exact position of individual particles because they must do this every "minute" of every single day for every particle which exists in the real world.

And finally, the most exciting implication of the gravionic model of physical systems involves using gravions to communicate with other life forms within our galaxy. If life is the purpose of the cosmos, then life must be abundant in our galaxy. If gravions connect at the speed of c², then they would propagate fast enough to allow humanity the possibility of communicating with other intelligence beings through these changing gravion connections. If my model is correct, then I would expect that the gravion connections of our galaxy could be used to exchange information among all beings of the galaxy. This galaxy "drumbeat" might be "heard" once we learn to "listen" to gravity.

If we examine the evolution of life on our planet, at some point life was breathed into the planet. At a later time, awareness was breathed into human beings. We need to complete this process by gaining a full awareness of who and what we are as human beings and learn how we relate to the rest of the cosmos. We need to become citizens of the Cosmos. Under my model, we represent connections of gravity which have slowly gone through the process of becoming fully aware of ourselves. We have become gravity looking at gravity.