Dear Tom,

I first want to thank you for the book and tell you how much I enjoyed it.  As a philosopher, my joy comes from seeing new viewpoints and your book definitely gave me new perspectives as well as clarifying older viewpoints.  I also want to tell you how much I respect you as a human being, even though I intend to vigorously disagree with some of your models.   I really don't understand why earth humans haven't learned to disagree without being disagreeable.  As a philosopher, I make many mistakes.  But for every mistake there comes a chance to learn.  If we value the truth, we must be able to admit our own mistakes.  I like the honesty that pervades your writing and I appreciate your willingness to state which parameters will prove or disprove your models.  Such openness is mostly missing in modern science, from what I have seen.  Please take all that I say as communication from one caring human being to another and not as criticism of your work.  Even though I disagree with some of your conclusions, I still think you have done more to advance cosmology than Dr. Hawking himself, who has done relatively little original thinking, in my humble opinion.

In order to try to balance things between praise and criticism of your work, I would first like to summarize my thoughts of your entire book.  Then I will go through page by page and make my specific comments regarding successes or failures that I see in your observations and conclusions.

Faster-than-light motion in forward time is possible.  I agree.

Gravitation propagates faster than light.  I agree.

The physical universe has five, and only five, dimensions.  I disagree.  Three are enough.

The universe is infinite in extent in all five dimensions.  I agree the cosmos is infinite.

There was no (single) Big Bang explosion to start the (our) universe.  I agree there was not a single event.  However evidence in the heavens shows that many such events have occurred and in fact must occur in an infinite cosmos, where every system must cycle.

The universe is not expanding.  I agree.  Physical systems move in every direction of an infinite cosmos.

The universal microwave radiation is of nearby origin.  Possible, but Not Enough Information To Make A Decision (NEITMAD).

There are no black holes in the universe.  I disagree.   Mankind has already "photographed" them.  See picture later in document.

Quasars are associated with our own and nearby galaxies. Possible NEITMAD

Galaxies are arranged in waves in an immense medium.  I disagree.  Your model has galaxies clumped into waves of the standing medium.  Under GMOPS, these structures would be 3D, in that additional perpendicular walls would form between your "wave" walls.

Gravitational shielding is possible.  I disagree.  Gravitational systems represent all mass that has gone into the system.  It is never shielded, but recycled when black holes become too large to hold their energy and come apart as a Big Bang Event (BBE).  It may be technically possible to control the connections of gravity, thus achieving a form of gravitational shielding.

The force of gravity is caused by a universal flux.  I disagree.   All bonds between all masses are gravitational bonds, arise from the mass and are called gravions.  Interaction between mass and the "strong force (a component of the gravitational system)," push out connections of gravity that loop outward from the mass and define the objects space.  These connections represent nature's coordinate system.  They form, connect, and disconnect at the speed of gravity (C²).   All real events begin with the connection of gravions and proceed with the subsequent exchanges of energy that occur at the speed of C or less.  Where did your flux come from?

The force of gravity has limited range.  I agree.  GMOPS fully supports the sphere of influence concept and the orbital mechanics as proposed by your book.

The classical description of quantum entities is incorrect.  I agree.  Quantum entities are actually gravitational events occurring at the speed of gravity.   Since all of mankind's instruments are currently restricted to the speed of light in gaining information, it is not hard to imagine why that tiny world looks as a blur to modern scientists.  The Moore Certainty Principle:  "I'm certain that nature knows the position and characteristics of every particle that exists in any universe."  If we learn to use the connections of gravity to "look" at these events, I think we too then might be able to "see" the exact nature of all real physical systems.  GMOPS preserves classical thought, in that a physical medium (gravions, once referred to as the aether) must be present for physical systems to "communicate" information.

The Bell Inequality in quantum physics should be violated.  I agree.

There is no "Oort Cloud" of comets.  Probable.  NEITMAD

Comets and asteroids are quite similar in nature.  I agree.

Comets and asteroids are accompanied by satellites.  I agree.

A former major planet exploded between Mars and Jupiter.  Probable NEITMAD

This explosion occurred just three million years ago.  Possible NEITMAD.  One connection I think you forgot to mention in your book, is that many of the Martian meteorites have an exposure age of about 3 million years.  These might have been knocked off Mars at the time of your last proposed planetary breakup event.

This explosion was the origin of comets and asteroids.  Probable NEITMAD

This explosion may be connected with the origins of man.  Possible NEITMAD

The Great Pyramids in Egypt are perhaps 9000 years old.  Possible NEITMAD

Artificial structures may exist on the surface of Mars.  Possible NEITMAD

Tidal forces on the Sun and giant planets are significant.  I agree.  These relate to specific connections of gravity and how they "bend."

There may be a sunspot-planet link.   Possible NEITMAD

Solar eclipses are best viewed away from the center line.  Probable.  I've only seen one.

Mercury was originally a moon of Venus.  Possible NEITMAD

Our moon originated from the Pacific basin of the Earth.  Possible NEITMAD

The moon no longer shows us the same face it used to.  Possible NEITMAD

The Martian moons are the survivors of a great many moons.  Possible NEITMAD

A great rift on Mars is the impact site of a former moon.  Possible NEITMAD

Jupiter's Red Spot is a floating impact remnant.  Possible NEITMAD

Saturn's rings are only a few million years old.   Possible NEITMAD

Solar system bodies have received black deposits.  Probable NEITMAD

The moons of Neptune were violently disrupted.  Possible NEITMAD

Pluto and Charon are escaped moons of Neptune.  Possible NEITMAD

Another undiscovered planet probably exits beyond Pluto.  Probable NEITMAD

In general, I agree with your observations about how the cosmos works, but I disagree with your proposed solution, the Meta Model.  The Meta Model rests on false assumptions and ignores the first principle.  Also it doesn't solve problems like the energy of the human spirit that is all covered under the gravionic model of physical systems (GMOPS).  I agree with your descriptions of orbital dynamics and cannot (at this time) find any flaws in your model of solar system development.  Surely within our lifetimes, measurements can be taken to prove or disprove your fissioning process of planet and moon formation.  Exploding planets are not fun to think about, but you present compelling evidence that the process has occurred one or more times.  Because we do not understand the process, doesn't mean that the process can't happen.  I agree completely that the single Big Bang/single universe/single finite cosmos model currently in vogue is not only improbable, but also impossible, as a scientific model.  The fundamental Christians say that everything that ever was, was created only 6,000 years ago, apparently from nothing.   The current crop of cosmologists say that everything that ever was, was created 13,000,000,000 years ago, again from nothing.  The only difference I see between the two models is a lot of zeros.  J

When I was very little, I was told to pray for those things that are important.  Not knowing exactly what things were important as a little boy, I have spent my life trying to find what things might be important.  Thus when I wanted to think about important things as a boy, I would close my eyes and imagine myself ascending above the Earth until I could see the whole solar system below me.  Then I would ascend even further, until I could see the Milky Way Galaxy below me.  When I got to this perspective, I thought I might be able to think of important things.  These things would not only be important to human beings, but to any others that might arise to awareness anywhere in an infinite cosmos.  In some ways, I have not spent much time thinking about our solar system, because it seems such a small part of everything.  But you have obviously spent a great deal of time thinking about our solar system and I respect your work and thoughts.  I have always just assumed that the particles "left over" in our solar system were the remains of planets and suns that went before and were distributed by the explosions of the sun in that system.  The "sun" material and the "planet" material would be distributed in the surrounding space and would show the signs of the explosions.  The explosion of planets during the life of the solar system would certainly explain much of the data that seems to be coming in on the asteroids, as represented by the meteorites we find.  Your information on exposure ages of meteorites does cast doubt on an ancient origins model.  I've tried to research this age data, without much success so far.  Do you know where I might find this data, showing all young exposure ages?

Chapter One

Most of my comments will revolve around the first few chapters of your book, as I agree with most of the latter chapters, especially the one on orbital dynamics.   In the end, to address the deficiencies I see in the Meta Model, I must address the problems solved by the gravionic model of physical systems (GMOPS).  Like you, I have seen the workings of nature and wondered at how it could all be this way.  GMOPS more specifically solves the problems you attempted to solve with the Meta Model, but the gravionic model goes way beyond in its models of life, human consciousness and other problems related to the physical energies of the human spirit, a real part of the cosmos.  Not having a better way to start, I'm just going to follow your book through the first 5 chapters.

You begin by asking a series of questions.  One of the problems in science is the lack of a good definition of many words, such as time, universe, or reality.  One of the express purposes in GMOPS is to define all terms, so that each of us, as we speak, can mean the same thing to each other.  Otherwise, we spend time arguing because our definitions are not the same.  We have no chance of communicating with each other unless we come to a common definition of the words we use to describe the models we propose. Through these and hopefully many more discussions we can begin to arrive at this mutually agreeable level.  Therefore, I would like to begin by answering the questions that you ask.

Page 2

            What is space?  All space, that we can know, is defined by the connections of gravity, called gravions.  Gravions arise from the mass and result in the sphere of influence you describe.

            What is time?  Time is the changing of the connections of gravity.        

What is matter and energy?  Energy is defined as the substance of the cosmos.  Mass is defined as that part of the energy of the cosmos which represents identity.  Gravity is defined as that part of the energy of the cosmos that represents relationship.

Is space or time absolute (able to exist without matter)?  No.  The first principle states that the minimum condition for existence in any universe is identity and relationship.  Just as you describe your first particle without a frame of reference, if this particle doesn't exist within our frame of reference (the connections of gravity), then we cannot know about its existence.  Each mass must bring its own space (gravity) as it comes into existence.  The mass and the gravity of any "thing" is part of its existence and its definition.  The two cannot be separated.  Thus, without mass, no space can be made and without the changing of these connections of gravity, no time can pass. 

What is the nature of force?  In particular, what is gravity?  Gravity is nature's coordinate system.  Its job is to keep track of the "things" (mass and energy) that exist.  For any two systems to "know" about each other, they must have at least one common connection of gravity, but generally many more.  Since gravity is nature's coordinate system, it must not only be responsible for drawing things in, but also for keeping things at the right distance apart.  Therefore every bond between every mass must be a gravitational bond, even though science likes to use lots of different names for each type of bond.  In the beginning, they must all be gravitational connections.  (See Dear Das Gupta).   All forces are therefore gravitational energies, transported through the gravitational system.  The gravitational system updates itself at the speed of C².  Energies moving through the system generally move at the speed of C or less.  The electromotive force is actually energies moving from one physical system (mass) through the connections of gravity (gravions) to a second physical system.  Thus the electromotive force is not a force by itself, but rather part of a physical system.

Why do bodies seem to be able to act on other bodies at a distant?  They have gravionic connections.  As mass comes into existence, it must bring its own space.  As this mass makes gravitational connections with other masses, the system works together to define an ever-larger space, by producing ever-larger looping gravions (now partly defined by superstring mathematics).  The gravionic energy comes from the mass.  Thus as more and more mass work together, they define an ever-larger space.  This is the essence of the proportional relationship that exists between mass and gravity and the sphere of influence you describe.

Are space, time, and matter infinitely divisible, or is there a limit to how small a unit of space, time, or matter can be?  Or how large?  There are limits on all physical systems.  The limits are defined by E=gmc², since this defines the energy of any real physical system.  Part of the energies is in the mass and part of it is in the bonds or gravitational connections (as well as the looping gravions generally connected with pre-gravionic science).  Part of the energy is usually moving through the connections of gravity, in any "normal" real physical system.  Since time is defined as the changing of the connections of gravity, then there must be a minimum "time" for the connection or disconnection between the two "closest" masses.  Likewise, E=gmc² shows the limits of energy in any physical system.  C² is the range of energies that are always in a ratio between the mass and the gravitational system.  Since any new particle coming into existence in any universe must bring it gravity with it, some of the energy of the system must be in the "g" no matter how much is in the "m."  I have proposed that all real systems in nature are powered by the conversion of mass energy into gravitational energy.    Since E=gmc² shows the limits of any real physical system, there must be a limit to both m and g as to their minimum and maximum values, with the range being C².

What are the size, age, and mass of the (our) universe?  This question assumes a single universe, but there again, we really have no good definition of a universe.  Under the gravionic model, a universe is defined as those physical systems that share common connections of gravity around a central region.  The Milky Way and associated galaxies are probably the limits of "our" universe.  Everything else we see belongs to other universes and is only slightly connected to us by the largest of gravions generated by the largest of black holes, where energy has been mostly transported out of the mass and is now representing itself as these large gravitational systems with their clusters of galaxies.  The cosmos is infinite, but each universe must have a beginning, middle, and an end.  One of the major problems with the Meta Model, is there is no mechanism for recycling at the largest of scales.  Without some method for recycling energies, the cosmos would sooner or later "wind down."  Since it doesn't, there must be some method for recycling energies.  I have proposed that black holes can only grow so large before they come apart.  When "m" reaches an effective value of zero (in E=gmc²), there is nothing philosophically, mathematically, or physically to hold the system together and it comes apart, redistributing the energy from the gravitational system back into the separate masses.  This energy is thus recycled and is available for use in building a new universe, or participating in a universe that currently exists.  Also, since we can never see all the cosmos that exists, we can only talk about measuring that part that we can see.  These values can never be considered "totals" for an infinite cosmos.

Page 3-6 The One-Particle Universe

There are apparently two choices.  Either "space" comes from the mass, or it comes from outside the mass.  All of traditional thought, including yours, has apparently assumed that space is somehow "out there," and mass interacts with it in some manner.  Also, the assumption has been made that the "space" is somehow Euclidean.   I say that this concept ignores the first principle of GMOPS.  The minimum condition for existence in any universe is identity and relationship.  As any particle comes into existence (I'll go into how this happens later on), it must bring its own space with it.  This is why everything in nature is relative.  All space is created by the connections of gravity that arise from the mass at the speed of C².   You and others have seen no way for space to come from the mass, even though your sphere of influence model clearly shows this is true.  But my thoughts have led me to believe that the only choice nature has, is to makes its space from the things that exist.  As we look at nature, we see the largest of structures creating the largest of space.  The rules you describe for your sphere of influence apply at all levels.  The largest of black holes, create the largest spaces (or universes) we see in the heavens.   Therefore, this represents a major break between your thoughts and mine.  I say nature must make its space from its mass (strings from things) and you say you can't imagine it, so you assume the opposite situation: that nature has some space already made and mass just happens to interact with it.  Where did this space come from and how is it made?   You model doesn't answer these questions, and in fact, like all other models, require us to accept on faith the existence of these "extra" systems.  GMOPS makes no such assumptions and clearly can define all we see from "things" we have already measured: mass, energy, and gravity.

You state, "In the real universe there is a frame of reference to provide meaning to distance and direction.  The reference frame is provided both by the presence of distant matter in the universe as well as by seas of rapidly moving 'agents,' such as protons and neutrinos.  The essential point is that the reference frame is provided by the presence of substance in the universe."  Although you take the position that mass is not necessary to be used to provide this "frame of reference" I think you have presented evidence that favors GMOPS over the Meta Model. Mass is necessary to create "space."  As I have already described, the connections of gravity are evident everywhere in nature.   The large structures you mention form the "basis" of the frame of reference, while every physical system that moves through defines its own space.   In your model, we must assume particles and features never before measured, while GMOPS uses only the three basic ingredients of energy, mass and gravity to make all that we see.  I think your arguments here are good and well founded, but you suffer from the basic assumption that nature's coordinate system must come from outside the mass, while I argue the only way that nature has of making a coordinate system is from the mass outward.  The larger the mass and the more the cooperation between them, the large the space they will define.

I agree with your assessments of the lone particle and the lack of meaning that would be associated with words like speed, direction, spin, and other measures of relationship.  This is another reason that each particle must bring its own space with it.  All of these features do have meaning in nature and so nature must deal with the problem from the very start. 

The reason that so many people assume the speed of gravity is infinite, is because this is what we assume when we use Euclidean math to solve a problem of the real world.  In your examples, you use a one-particle universe and then a two-particle universe.  You correctly realize that without a coordinate system, these two particles would really not have a relationship.   To solve this problem, most humans construct a three dimensional coordinate system and place the two objects within the coordinate system so that they can now calculate the distance between the objects, or motion if it is occurring.  But what have they done in solving this problem?  They have created the coordinate system at an infinite rate in relationship to their problem.  They just assume that the coordinate system takes no time to work, since in their calculations the time required to make the coordinate system is not considered.  Nature doesn't have this luxury.  Since the speed of gravity is faster than the speed of light, the coordinate system can construct itself in "real" time.  But since there is a limit to the speed of gravity, it must take some time to construct or reconstruct its coordinate system as "things" move through it, each with their own gravitational coordinate system defining its space and deciding its future involvements.  Thus nature's coordinate system must account for the speed of its determination, while mankind ignores this problem and just assumes the coordinate system can do its job at an infinite rate with infinite abilities.  The single big bang model requires an infinite speed of the coordinate systems, so that nature can somehow know the mass of everything that exists, "at the same time."  This is impossible if there are any limitations to the speed or affect of gravity.  E=gmc² and all the measurements we make of the cosmos clearly show that these limitations are real.

E=mc² has been accepted as being real for many years, yet I would contend it can't represent any real physical system, event, or process.  As an example, take the calculation of sunlight hitting the Earth.  It has been said that every day, the Earth receives 4 and 1/2 pounds of mass via energy from the sun.  My question is, "Doesn't this mass have any gravity?"  How can one say that the Earth increases its mass without increasing its gravity?  Any other example of the use of E=mc² will elicit the same response from me.  How can you change the mass of something without affecting its gravity?  And where does the energy go in this equation?  In nature it must be contained within mass, or the connections of gravity.  It just can't "go free" as this equation would have us assume.  In addition, E=mc² has led mankind astray in our understanding of entropy.  When one looks at any reaction under this formula, one sees that the mass loses energy in all real reactions.  This has led pregravionic science to come to the conclusion that systems are winding down and that disorder is taking place.  But once one looks at E=gmc², one sees that the energy of all real reactions is actually moving from the mass into the gravitational system, by making new and varied connections.  Since the number of connections represents the order of any universe, every universe is moving towards order, not away from it.  Examples within our own sight include our sun, patiently making helium from hydrogen, thus making a more ordered product.  Our own planet Earth now contains far more order than when it started.   A single leaf on a tree is in some ways more ordered than the entire planet, when it first formed, possibly from fission from our sun.  The increase in order is always there in nature, if only we view the situation from the highest possible viewpoint.

Page 7-11 Zeno's Paradox

I don't except Zeno's Paradox as having any relationship with reality.   The logic does not hold up.  The fallacy lies in the words "at every instant."  First it assumes that every instant is the same for every system.   GMOPS indicates that time is the changing of gravions, but as viewed from any one particular system, time is not continuous as present science would have us believe.  Since time is the changing of gravions, time passes for each real "thing" only as its connections of gravity change.  The only way to think "of every instant" under GMOPS is to imagine imaginary time, an invention of Dr. Hawking.  Although he doesn't know what it means, under GMOPS, imaginary time is similar to the single step function in the older computers that had address and data line switches by which the computers were programmed.  I used the Imsai and Altair computers in this manner.  Imagine the room that you are in and all the connections of gravity that must exist.  Within the molecules there are connections and between each of them, there are connections to their neighbors.  Now imagine that you could instantly stop everything and examine the connections.  In addition, you could see which connections of gravity might be possible in the next "instant" of change of the connections of gravity.  In the old computers, once one entered the program, one could "single step" through the operation of the program to check for errors.  Imagine that same situation in our imaginary time experiment.  Imaginary time would be the examination of which connections are possible in the next step, and thus which forms of reality are actually possible in the near future, since not every connection of gravity could occur in the next "instant" but only those close enough and with the proper energies to make these new connections.  The gravitational system is constantly measuring the position and speed of every mass, so it makes no sense to say that motion is impossible.  Merely the fact of motion in our reality means that the conclusion of the paradox can not be true.

The same logic applies to your next example of something moving from point A to B.  Since nature has a finite number of steps between every point A and every point B, then the logic fails when one assumes there is not a finite step length.  Of course we know in reality that we never make half steps to get from point A to point B, since we generally make a finite number of steps of the same length, which then does get us from point A to point B.  Again, since in nature this feature is not found (of not being able to get from point A to point B) then we can't claim that Zeno's Paradox somehow applies to nature, when it clearly doesn't.  Thus to take this paradox as a foundation to build a model of reality seems destined to failure from the start, since it doesn't mimic the actions of nature that we accept as real every day of our lives. 

This is the second major point of contention with your model.  One of my degrees is in electronic systems.  I have spent 25 or 30 years solving complex computer problems.  One of the lessons I learned many years ago is to always check one's assumptions.  Any house of logic is only as good as the assumptions on which it rests.  If the assumptions are false, then the logical house is likely to be false.  I think your assumptions are false and thus you have built a logic that fails once the assumptions are realized.  This is no sin and I don't think less of you for making what appears to me to be a false assumption.  I have made many in my life in the repair of computer systems or databases.  I never thought less of myself, because I had made a false line of reasoning, but in fact rejoiced because I had now eliminated one line of thinking that kept me from solving the problem.  During my "hay day" I was known as the guy who could solve any computer problem.  I could never do that by accepting false assumptions and never ever checking those assumptions.  An open mind requires the continued examination of our assumptions.

Next, at the bottom of page 7, you consider two points separated by the minimum space.  Then you inject another particle the same distance from the first, but "closer" to the second.  Again, under GMOPS each real physical system defines its own space.  This space keeps other objects from becoming too close.  No two objects can define the same space and each must respect the space of the other.  Thus again, the thought experiment shows no relationship to nature and thus leads to false conclusions built upon false assumptions.

Your next argument on page 8 assumes time to be another dimension and then you use the previous arguments to show that time suffers the same problem.  Without a proper definition of time, it is easy to see how you could make this assumption, but I think nature shows that this concept is incorrect.  Time is the changing of the connections of gravity and thus is individual for every particle and physical system that exists.  There is no universal time like your experiment (and most of the rest of science) assumes.

Your conclusion on page 9 is erroneous.  Space and time both have physical limits, and since you assume the opposite, all of your logic from this point on is suspect, since it is based on false assumptions.  What we actually have is a finite whole, made up of a finite number of parts with a finite number of connections of gravity, all of which exists in an infinite cosmos.  Every physical system is finite in its mass parts, its connections of gravity, and its energy.  Through an infinite connection of gravions, it is, however, connected to the rest of the infinite cosmos.

Page 12-14  Zeno-like Paradox for Matter

"For example, when macroscopic bodies seem to touch, they actually consist of mostly empty space at the atomic level: so it must be their atoms which actually touch."  Actually it is the gravions that touch each other.  Since each physical system defines its own space, that space is what actually touches when one physical system touches another.  You point out that the distance between masses is mostly space, and since GMOPS says that every bond between every mass MUST be a gravionic bond, then you have clearly made the point for me that the connections of gravions define all space that we can know.  Once one realizes that the gravions are actually touching and not the masses (except in more rare circumstances) then the paradox is resolved and again is shown not to represent reality and therefore represents a bad assumption when trying to understand the workings of nature.

"Substance must be infinitely divisible, as must space and time, or else the paradoxes quickly lead to unresolvable logical dilemmas."   In this instance I think you are confusing issues.  You seem to think that these paradox problems require infinite divisibility, when GMOPS clearly points the other way.  Since you have used this assumption for the rest of your logical arguments, this then is the place that our thinking most completely diverges.  Part of the problem arises when we think that any of our math or any of our models is actually the real thing.  Even our very minds must be models of reality, not the reality itself.  All of our math and all of our models are not the reality itself.  They are merely models of reality.  Thus I cannot accept any of your logic that follows from what I consider to be false assumptions about the real world.   Also, since it is easy to see that none of these paradoxes actually represent our experiences in the real world, I wonder why you are so set in following this pathway, when it doesn't fit reality to begin with, much less in the end.

Page 14-19  The Meaning of Space, Time, and Matter

I of course accept your arguments against the single big bang model.  I have presented other arguments of my own and believe that the current model is not even a possible model of cosmology.

On page 17 you state, "In a very real sense, this universe without the possibility of motion or change has not time.  It is interesting that this statement is in complete agreement with GMOPS.  Without the ability of gravions to change, there is no meaning to time.  Later on the same page you state, "It can therefore be said in a logically meaningful way that space and time which are empty of particles and events do not exist!"  I think this statement is true, since to have existence, any physical system must have mass, energy and connections of gravity to our universe, if we are to know of its existence.

On page 19 you assume 5 dimensions as a minimum condition.  However, under GMOPS only three are needed since neither time nor scale are dimensions.  Since you so often quote Occam's Razor as a truth, then isn't it more in line with the simplest model to have fewer dimensions rather than more?

In your defense of the scale dimension on page 19, you seem to assume that nature is Euclidean.  GMOPS clearly shows that all connections of gravity "bend" and thus one cannot assume a one to one relationship between Euclidean math and reality.  All of relativity is based around the assumption that nature has an Euclidean nature and relativity is the "correction factor" between this supposed Euclidean world and the actual measurements we make that clearly show the world is not Euclidean.  As mankind was rising to awareness on this tiny little one G planet, Euclidean math seemed to represent reality.  But the farther we go and the closer we measure things, the more we must realize that nothing in nature is really Euclidean, it just seems that way in small gravitational fields.  (Remember that compared to most of the rest of the cosmos, the planet Earth is almost at zero G.)  Straight lines do not exist in nature.  Gravions are either made "bent" or they bend in their operations.  Thus, in nature, as strange as it seems, the shortest space between two objects is not a straight line, but in many cases is vastly curved, because of the great mass and "curved" space that results.  As an example, look at X-ray pictures of the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which clearly show great curving arches as matter is connected to the black holes at the center and are trying to escape, but are caught by immense gravionic connections that clearly curve great distances as they "hold on" to the mass, refusing to let go.

Page 20-23  The Many Particle Universe

In this section you draw a picture of many particles in a "container."  You realize that they must "bump" into each other, yet you don't seem to account for the space each particle must have to realize its own existence.  In nature, it is always the connections of gravity that are "bumping" into one another, not generally the masses themselves (although it does happen is specialized cases).  All pressure, heat transfers, and contact between all masses occur at the gravitational level and not at the mass level.  Thus although your logic is elegant and well thought through, it doesn't match what we see in reality and I would suggest that GMOPS handles the problems you have stated much better than your solution of solving the problem of gravity by using "mass" (C-gravitons) instead of realizing that nature must use connections of gravity (gravions) to accomplish this task.  The very concept of a graviton is an oxy moron.  Either all particles contain gravity (required under GMOPS) or NO particle by itself can be the carrier of gravity.  Gravity must be connections and relationship and mass must be identity.  The two are required to make any universe and no universe can be made from mass alone or from gravity alone (as the superstring mathematicians seem want to do).

Chapter 2  On Gravity

From the very beginning, I agree with you when you state, "… we postulate that 'action at a distance' in its purest form, with no agents passing between the acting body and affected one, must logically be impossible."  I heartily agree with this statement and this very fact was one of the founding principles used in GMOPS.   Where our disagreement comes is in your attempt to make gravity into a particle when it must clearly be a relationship or a bond of some type.  If you would take your C-gravitons and your light-carrying medium (LCM) and combine their properties, one has gravions.  Superstring equations show the familiar electromagnetic sine wave traveling through their looping superstrings.  Clearly gravions, the connections between masses, are the transport mechanisms of light and all energies and the "agent" that makes communication at a distance possible.  It makes much more sense to think of this system as being a set of connections since we already think of bonds in all aspects of science.  We merely need to understand that these bonds are gravitational bonds.  It makes no sense to think of the qualities of gravity being transferred through a series of "particles" which have never been seen or measured.  The gravitational system has been measured many times before; it is just that those doing the measuring have not been aware of what they are measuring.

GMOPS predicted that the difference in "speed" between the connections of gravity and the movement of light through this system would be evident in all physical systems we see through our telescopes.  Your work has helped prove this concept and I thank you for the additional evidence you have offered.  I agree with your assessments that the speed of gravity must be faster than the speed of light.  This brings me to the second principle of GMOPS:  Any coordinate system must update itself faster than the fastest thing that moves through the system.  You have arrived at the value of greater than 10¹⁰ the speed of light, while I have arrived at the value of C².  I model many of my systems in my mind.  I could see that contradictions would occur if gravity could not propagate at a much higher rate than light, which seems to be the fastest component of the C world.  Since I have always wondered why Einstein's equation has a C² component, it hit me one day that this was not only the speed of the gravitational system, but also the range of energies of any real physical system.  Thus I have settled on C² as the speed of gravity, while you still search for a number between C and an infinite velocity.  I will continue to defend C² as the "real" speed of the gravitational system, as it seems to meet all requirements and it adds extra meaning to E=gmc².

Page 28 The Properties of Gravity

You start by quoting Newton, "Every two particles of matter (that share at least one gravion connection) in the universe attract each other with a force which acts in the line joining them (gravion), and whose intensity varies as the product of their masses and inversely with the square of their distances apart."  I have corrected this statement by my comments in parenthesis.  From your descriptions of the sphere of influence, it is clear that the force of attraction is only between those objects that have connections of gravity.  Once outside the sphere of influence, there comes a time that any two physical systems no longer share a relationship with each other and thus can't share in any exchange of energy.  This is one of the very reasons that the single big bang model is impossible.  Only those physical systems with gravionic connections can have this relationship and the limits of the sphere of influence prohibit all the mass of the cosmos from "knowing" about all the other mass.   Nature can not measure all mass "at the same time," so there can be no expanding or contracting "universe."  This concept can only exist in the minds of those that think nature is Euclidean and that the speed and effect of gravity is infinite.

On page 29 you mention the process of heat transfer.  Under GMOPS, any indication of energy flow is an indication of a connection of gravity.  Thus since we see an energy flow, we can then assume an underlying connection of gravity to allow these energies to be exchanged from one physical system to another.

In the first full paragraph of this page you come to the heart of GMOPS.  You state that everything seems to share in this gravitational system, no matter if it is large or small.  This is because every connection between every mass is a gravitational connection and is being measured at the rate of C².  You make the same mistake that so many before you have made.  You assume that gravity is only attractive.  But if gravity is every bond between every mass and if gravities job is to keep track of everything that exists (mass), then gravity must also be responsible for holding things the proper distance apart.  The strong force is part of the gravitational system and I believe is responsible for generating the large looping structures that have generally been thought of as gravity.  If we want to make a gravionic concentrator, then we must learn to somehow push the masses closer together, because all of nature shows us that the closer we push the masses, the greater the space they define.

On page 30 you discuss action at a distance.  I agree with Newton's quote.  The place I disagree with you is in the mechanisms for obtaining a connection between masses.  I think gravions connect mass and you think that tiny little C-gravitons working through an unknown and unmeasured medium connect mass.  Again I would just say that to make any universe, one needs things and a relationship of those things.  That cannot be accomplished with just things.  You must have things and their relationship.  Gravions fill the bill much better than the description you give of the Meta Model.

The crux of the matter develops on page 33 where you state, "We might then imagine two possibilities: the agents come from within the matter which attracts, or the agents originate outside the matter."  You state that you couldn't intuitively see how agents could come from the matter.  I can't see how they could come from outside the matter, since then we would have to come up with a model of where these agents might come from themselves.  Since there is no experimental evidence for the existence of these outside agents, then it is much better to assume the agents come from within the mass, since GMOPS states that each real system, even if composed of only a single particle, must bring its gravitational space into existence when the particle comes into existence.  Also, because something is not intuitive to you, doesn't mean that nature couldn't solve the problem.  Many times I have heard scientist say that they can't imagine "such and such."  My response to them is that I would never let anyone else limit my imagination, or the imagination of nature.  Because you can't imagine a black hole, does not mean that nature can't make one.  Each of us is limited by our experiences and our imagination.  I have just tried to not let anyone limit the possibilities I see in an infinite cosmos.

Page 43 The "Instantaneous" Action of Gravity

Although gravity is assumed to work instantaneously, I think we have both come to the conclusion that this can't be true.  If the action were instantaneous, then all gravitational reactions would exist outside of time.  This seems hard for me to accept, since all observed physical systems seem to have limitations and gravity too must have its limitations.  I think that I have shown that gravitational events happen rather quickly but they are not instantaneous.  I basically agree with each of your demonstration arguments that the gravitational system must update itself faster than light, but not at an infinite speed.

Under New Properties of Gravitation on page 53, I agree that the gravitational system must act at a speed faster than light and that there is a limit to the gravitational fields of any real physical system.  I don't agree that mass can be shielded and photos of black holes negate your arguments, I think.   Proof that black holes exist would "break" the Meta Model if we can show that no shielding can exist, at least in natural systems.  Every physical system advertises its gravitational space by the collections of gravions that make up that system.

As proof that black holes do exist, I would like to submit the following pictures:

The first picture was taken with the Hubble Space Telescope.   The Hubble acted as an "eyepiece" for a giant 2 billion light year long telescope.  This galaxy cluster was used as a gravitational lens to view another galaxy that resided a billion light years further away.   Since the gravitational lens acted to make multiple views of the most distant galaxy appear, a computer was instructed to calculate what gravity would be necessary to produce the distortions seen.   The above picture was the result of that experiment.  This picture clearly shows a large number of black holes (seen by the intensities of the peaks) being orbited by a number of galaxies.  As you can see, the material from many galaxies has already gone down the "drain" of the black holes at the center of this "mess."  Additional galaxies are orbiting this structure, each of which has at least one black hole in its center.  At the left most upper quadrant, we see two galaxies colliding.  All of these structures are under the gravitational influence of the black holes at its center and are destined to one day go "down the drain" themselves.   Each of the peaks represent the basic relationship of E=gmc², with the size of the peak representing the "g" portion of the equation.  A BBE will occur when one of the spikes gets too large, thus taking the energy from the mass until which time the mass no longer has enough energy to supply a place to connect gravions.  (The result of these BBEs can be seen in the second picture.  Each void would represent a past Event.)  The system would then come apart, with each mass recovering its gravity, but now having no relationship to the rest of the existing universes.  Thus E=gmc² is preserved throughout all real events, from the energy of a single particle and its gravity to human beings and their energy to black holes and their combined energy.  Since the existence of black holes can now be proven, this fact negates your arguments about gravitational shielding that are projected under the Meta Model.  Thus the Metal Model has failed an important test and cannot be considered as a model that matches the "real" world.

As one additional point, I think the above "picture" helps us explain the motion and direction of the Milky Way galaxy.  I propose that the Milky Way was once orbiting a very large black hole, much like the situation above.  But at some point, this large black hole went critical and turned itself into a BBE.  Any event such as this must have an event horizon, so that not all the material of the cosmos is in any one event.  I think we were outside this event horizon and once the Event happened, the Milky Way was "set free" to roam the cosmos.  The initial angular momentum was then converted into straight-line momentum and that accounts for the great speed of the Milky Way and the other galaxies traveling with us.  Just as you have corrected analyzed in other areas, the conversion of a black hole to a BBE would result in an immediate demise of the sphere of influence of the black hole.  Thus all objects orbiting such a structure would immediately preserve their own sphere of influence, but no longer be under the control of the once central black hole structure.  If my model is correct, then the Milky Way should be "flying" from one of the voids of the known cosmos and approaching one of the filamentous branches of matter that exist between the "holes." 

Chapter 3  On Relativity

"Gravity influences the density of the light-carrying medium (LCM) near matter ingredients (MIs), which in turn can change the speed of propagation of light and electromagnetic forces."   Philosophically I can't argue that what you propose is not possible.  Every time we say that something is not possible, we close a door that may just be the door we need someday in the future.  I think that the first principle precludes the possibility of an universe made solely from "things," with no connections other than things "bumping" into one another.  Since you have a light-carrying medium in your model, why don't you just replace it with a gravion?  Then you can drop the C-gravitons and the MI's because they wouldn't be necessary.  The connections of gravions can answer your problems much simpler and more elegantly than having to create "things" which have never been measured or surmised as real, until the Metal Model.  (Well I guess gravitons have been imagined for a long time, but I'm still not sure how a C-graviton would differ from a "regular" graviton, since regular gravitons arose from a classical view of nature.)

I find it amusing that you would say that the Meta Model has no need for curved space-time, as if that feat were an accomplishment.  Do you realize what you are saying by that statement?  You are saying that you believe that space-time is Euclidean and that straight lines actually exist.  Again, I think humanity has assumed that fact because in the early days Newton looked good with his Euclidean assumptions.   And then Einstein came along and showed us how we could correct for the differences between nature and an Euclidean system, with all its straight lines. But as we look closer at things, it seems that space itself is bent.  Under GMOPS, all space is made from the connections of gravity and thus space is never made straight.  Under GMOPS, there are two kinds of gravions: self-gravions and advertising gravions.  The self-gravions are defined partly by straight superstrings, but even these bend more often than not.  The advertising gravions are always made bent and represent the curved space measured so often by gravitational lensing and other experiments. 

I believe the advertising gravions come from the straight ones (normally associated with the strong force) and in fact, they must in some ways move back and forth between the two states.  Consider an asteroid coming from outside our solar system on a collision course with the Earth.  Make the rock big enough to survive a landing on the Earth.  At first, both systems have their separate mass and gravitational spheres of influence.  These spheres are modeled gravitationally by the total collection of their looping superstrings.  The self-gravions within each object work together signifying that they are part of the same physical system.  As the two bodies first come together, the largest gravions of each body make contact and merge into a connection of gravity at the speed of C².  As you know, the energy and movement of the two bodies determine if this connection is later broken and the asteroid escapes the Earths gravity, or the connection will not be broken and the object will impact the Earth.  After impact, the object is now a part of the Earth and in fact is contributing to the total mass of the Earth. It was probably contributing on the way down.  This information is updated at the speed of gravity, but now what were once advertising gravions have been made into self-gravions, since the two objects are now part of the same physical system.

In the end, I think the biggest problem that science has faced in understanding space and time is the insistence that the cosmos is square.  It just ain't square.  It never was.  It never will be.  And as long as we try to see things from that perspective, mankind will continue to get it wrong.  One of my friends once told me that the reason the scientists don't like me is because I didn't ask them how the cosmos worked.  Well I did try to ask them, but I quickly learned that they didn't know the answer.  So I asked nature how she worked.  I didn't bring any prejudices into the process, because I didn't care how she did it, I only wanted to know how and why things work the way they do.  Also, after years of working on computers and other electronic gadgets, I have developed methods to keep track of my assumptions.  In electronics and especially in computers, your assumptions and logic are tested in a real manner every single day.  Either you fix the computer or you don't.  Your success is measured repeatedly.  If you really want to be able to fix every problem, then one must keep close track of all assumptions and the logic that follows.  I learned a long time ago that when I had a particularly hard logical problem, to revisit my assumptions.  I often found the answer there.  Science has come to the point that no one seems to look at his or her assumptions anymore.   They are handed out in college and then proudly worn around the neck, like some ancient good luck charm.  The assumption that there is some "straight" space out there waiting to be bent has led to the failure of Einstein and all that have followed.  Another bad assumption was that since every particle has a beginning, that every particle might have the same beginning.  Evidence seems to show otherwise.

Another problem I have with the Meta Model is that you want to make all of your analogies between the movement of electromagnetic energy and the movement of sound traveling through air.  Since you propose an unknown and unmeasured medium and ting particles carrying gravity, I guess it would seem that the analogies would work.  However, there seems to me to be a fundamental difference between energies I consider moving through gravions, compared to other movements that seem to be objects moving and carrying with them their own space.  I don't yet know if there is mass to a "particle" of light, but I have to come down on the opposite side at this point in space and time.  In essence, I don't think the two can be properly understood by using that kind of model and will only serve to lead us astray at a later time.  Of course, in the end, all wave action is associated with gravions and all mass action is associated with mass.  Since GMOPS states that every real system must have energy stored as both mass and gravity, the dual nature of all reality is further proof of the validity of GMOPS.

On page 62 you state, "If waves through the CG medium exist, they must be longitudinal, analogous to sound waves, because the medium is made up of discrete entities and is not continuous."  If the medium were made of gravionic connections as I have proposed, then your statement would be false, being based on a false assumption that the media was not continuous, when gravions are continuous between connected masses.

Next you say "The light-carrying medium must pervade all space where light can be transmitted."  That statement perfectly describes the situation proposed by GMOPS.  Light can only go where it has transport through the gravitational system.  Since the gravitational system is updated so quickly, light leaving a star should already have its destination planned by that system.  Of course, as the system changes, the light may be directed down other gravions, always adjusting themselves at the speed of gravity.

My last comment about this page is where did the LCM and CGs and Mis come from?  If the process you propose is true, then we must now come up with a method of formation of space itself, outside the mass.  This leads to untold additional complications, especially since we can apparently never measure these objects directly in any way.

On page 63 you talk of the bending of light assuming a "flat" space-time.  Can you see how the assumptions of mankind have led us talk this way?  The "flat" space-time exists only in our imaginations, yet we perceive it as real.

On page 65 you talk of gravity waves.  Gravity waves would be real under GMOPS.  However, these would propagate at the speed of gravity, or C².  That means the system would realign itself very quickly, with the "wave" passing at the speed of C².  Unless one was paying close attention, you might not notice that it had happened, since humans tend to look at things in the C world, while forgetting about the strings in the C² world. 

It is now Tuesday morning and I'm trying to write again after hearing the news about the attacks on the world trade center and the Pentagon.  It is hard to concentrate on issues of space and time, yet in the end, surely a more complete understanding of these issues will benefit all humanity.  From the gravionic point of view, each universe is moving towards order.  All truly aware beings must appreciate order and must teach each and every human being on the planet to cherish that order and work for the common good.

It is now the following week.  My intention was to read your book and write my report in the first week that you sent me the material.  I wanted to do this to show you that I had thought deeply and regularly about the issues of which you write in your book.  I wanted you to realize that I couldn't have thought this all up since I received your book and I would hope that you would understand how much thought has gone into the many of the problems you propose.  However, events in the world and a previously promised trip to Texas have kept me from completing this document within my self-imposed deadline.  It is now a week later and I'll try to finish this and get it sent to you and posted on the internet.

Chapter 4 Stars, Galaxies, and the Universe

I always hate it when someone says "the Universe" (someone assuming that there is only a single universe) when I think the evidence shows we can see many "universes" out there, each centered around massive black holes in the middle of galaxies or galaxy clusters.  (I also hate it when someone uses the phrase "software program," because it is redundant.  Why don’t they just say software or program? J)

I have to admit that I agree with most of what you say in this chapter.  I think the basic problem with the Meta Model is your belief that space can't arise from the mass.  Your observations of nature are generally first class, except your model is based on a false assumption.  I agree with your conclusions about the limited range of gravity.  However, the place we disagree is in your model of large-scale systems.  Since you propose gravitational screening, your model has stars being created at the center of a galaxy and then they "stream out" through many of the great arms.  I say that these stars are streaming inwards and thus our two models may be better judged once we know the actual "movement" of stars within streams.  Also, these streams do not seem to occur until a galaxy has had at least one collision with another galaxy, so I would say they can't occur without massive black holes at the center of each galaxy drawing systems together.

Everywhere we see a great void in the cosmos is evidence to me of the existence of a BBE at that location sometime in the past.  Once the gravionic model is allowed to progress through infinity, once sees that mass would tend to build in certain locations only to be rendered "useless" by a BBE.  Thus all matter would tend to "concentrate" around these large voids and would eventually lead to the spider web formations we now see in the heavens.

We also differ in our projections of the great walls of matter.  You would have them align in waves, due to the wave nature of your CGs in the "medium."  I would have them aligned in 3 dimensions, around each of the BBE "explosions" which would tend to form the large "holes" that we see in the cosmos.  Thus our models can be further compared once a complete 3D model of the visible cosmos is available.  You predict almost 2D waves, while I predict complete 3D "holes."

I agree with most of what you say concerning the red shift.