New Page 1

<body> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Preface</p> </font><font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Scientific Cosmology & Naturalistic Worldview</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><b><font FACE="Book Antiqua" SIZE="2"><a href="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/hughmlewis/">by Hugh M. Lewis</a></font></b></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <p ALIGN="center" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"><b>A mysterious and mighty hand cast the tiny dice</b></p> <p ALIGN="center" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"><b>The academicians began dancing upon the head of the proverbial pin</b></p> <p ALIGN="center" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"><b>And everyone in the audience applauded and cheered the grand performance</b></p> <p> </p> <p><b><font size="6">S</font></b>cience has made many things possible that before were only things of the imagination. And yet science alone is insufficient if it is only about reductionist analysis and technological application in the real world. Science must also offer to us a coherent view of the world, one that is naturalistic and serves to explain as succinctly as possible all the phenomena and processes that occur in the world. Part of the invention of science has been its systematic extension of our ability to see worlds we didn't even imagine previously to exist. In so doing, it has enlarged our compass, scope and view of reality by many orders of magnitude. It has sharpened our focus upon reality. At the same time, reality as we understand this especially as a scientific question, has become obviously more complicated at each turn of the resolving powers of our scientific instruments.</p> <p>Cosmology is, properly speaking, a naturalistic view of the world. The world it looks out onto through the window of science is of course the world of the total universe or some part of the hypothetical whole of reality. As a worldview, cosmology is a natural explanation that is important to our symbolic identity as intelligent human beings. We seek answers to fundamental questions we ask about reality. These we ask as we gaze up into the nighttime heavens to view the stars that surround us on all sides and seem always to follow upon our shoulders whichever way we may turn and go. We have sought these kinds of answers for a very long time, and these kinds of questions help define our identity as Homo sapiens sapiens--as beings of infinite wisdom and folly.</p> <p>Cosmology is not only the esoteric domain of a highly specialized and exclusive group of experts. It is the realm of every person to consider, ponder and wonder about. We need to know our place in the world, in a naturalistic sense, and this must be done in a language not overloaded with professional jargon and technicalese. Cosmology is one of the most common forms of knowledge that human beings can share with one another, and it helps to define some of the most basic principles and concepts in our natural sciences.</p> <p>I have undertaken this work in cosmology as an extended outcome of theoretical work upon some very basic ideas in natural systems. This work is a logical consequence of an earlier theory proposed of physical systems, and as such offers a revised and more coherent explanation of the universe in the form of both a cosmology and as a systematic set of statements as to the basic structural patterning of reality. By reality in this context, I am referring to the objective physical reality that is "out there" beyond the boundaries of our own subjective spheres of personal experience. Within this work, I am not interested in alternative realities or alternative views of reality except what we can correctly call science in an objective and inter-subjective sense.</p> <p>As a theory the cosmological view of physical reality that I present herein is highly productive though it is counter-paradigmatic in the Kuhnian sense as to what is the received view of the universe, the classical relativistic hot Big Bang model. I take issue with this model as a zero-state universe that is in an ultimate sense blindly deterministic. Based upon a principle of cosmic singularity, it fails to resolve basic internal contradictions and external observational inconsistencies implied by this principle.</p> <p>The paradox of this model is that it still strongly suggests that the universe is probably expanding. But it is likely that the red shift and Hubble constant are not the primary indications of this expansion process, at least not in any direct sense that we construe this now in terms of apparent galactic recession. We have an unquestioned linear model of light propagation that was bequeathed to us by Einsteinian relativity that still does not allow God to play dice with the universe. I have adopted a non-linear theory of light, as a self-propagating field system that predicts that light in the long run will systematically downshift in frequency while its amplitude gradually grows. This is the expected outcome of light as a naturally occurring system. What remains remarkable about it is its degree of asymptotic stability--its near Pythagorean perfection in the universe that is the product of its almost perfect transparency in space-time. I say, almost perfect of course, as light is inherently a thermodynamic system in the most basic of senses, and hence, it is also an entropic system.</p> <p>This turns out to be a critical issue in understanding both the cosmological structure of the universe and in understanding the basic processes of our reality, <u>if the theory proves to be even partially true</u>. It opens the door rather dramatically to our being able finally to understand and control gravitation and step beyond the boundaries of our own relativistic constraints in a unified cosmological field, among other interesting things.</p> <p>If we are to understand the expansion of the universe, we must see this expansion as part of some more general relativistic frame of reference that is universal in scope, and reaches beyond Einsteinian relativities and Heisenbergian uncertainties. The model of expansion I have developed applies to what may possibly be a sub-universe, and would be an expected outcome of a universe that lacks a common gravitational center of balance. Instead, we have a picture of a universe in which there are multiple centers of gravitational balance competing with one another, and in turn being driven further and further apart as these regions migrate toward the peripheries of the overall system.</p> <p>In such a model, a central region develops, but this is one that might be contrary to our everyday expectations, as it would comprise a huge gravitational vortex in which space-time is flooding out in all directions, and not flooding in. This model appears to be even more bizarre if we come to understand this center as not being focally defined, but interstitially definable between sub-universes such that center and outer limits connect together. The universe comes to take on a reticulated and variegated cosmic structure, a cellular framework defined within a complex lattice of space-time. What we think is the center becomes the all-encompassing margins of our universe. The overall view of the universe is not as a concentric, spiral or disc-shaped affair, as to be expected of our observation of conventional gravity systems. Instead it leads to a complex view of a reticulated or mosaic multi-state structure that is perhaps bound together like a rope twisting through shared space-time that is gravitationally unified. Sub-universes appear in this structure to be non-isotropically distributed within their cellular compartments.</p> <p>Thus, we may conclude that expansion is occurring everywhere in this larger structure, expressed in terms of sub-universes, but may ultimately be leading nowhere else but back to itself in some other set of dimensions. To reconcile this paradox, I have hypothesized a hypothetical structure of physical reality that I refer to as the sphere of reality. This sphere of reality provides the common frame of reference for our hypothetization of universal relativity. The basic argument of this sphere of reality is that of universal continuity and congruity. I make these presuppositions inferentially based upon observations of ordered physical relations in our own observational sphere. These presuppositions appear as theoretically and scientifically necessary to a coherent cosmology. We may call them into question only if we can find a suitable explanation or replacement for them that accounts for the ordering we do see in the universe.</p> <p>Essentially, the total universe co-occurs in an interconnected manner at the same "instant." It is the complete and grander nature of the interconnections between universal structures that we do not fully understand. We cannot actually conceptualize this instantaneity in relativistic terms of temporal standards we apply in our own field of observation and upon which a general relativistic cosmology is based. It suggests, among other things, complex state structures of the universe. It suggests also that our understanding of this is relative to the fundamental energy system that we are occurring within, and this system is necessarily stratified upon multiple levels. We can hypothesize multiple, interconnected reality spheres though it may be ultimately impossible to prove.</p> <p>Complex state structures of the inferable universe lead to an evolutionary cosmology of the self-reproducing universe. Our only model for spontaneous reproduction is from biological life, but we must understand that the reproductive processes occurring in the universe are non-biological in form, and there is no direct connection between these kinds of processes. The fact of the spontaneous evolution of life from physical processes lends analogical credence to the possibility of this hypothesis of spontaneous universal physical (i.e., non-biological) evolution. This process of spontaneous generation appears only anti-entropic unless we understand it to be occurring within a larger meta-system framework that may be ultimately open and unbounded in scale and scope.</p> <p>We can understand the cosmological history of the evolutionary universe as one of the emergence and differentiation of the reality sphere (or spheres) through "time" as this occurs in a larger quintessential dimension. It leads to a complex series of state-stages of development of a universe that is growing increasingly more complex and dynamic at each turn of the reality sphere. The expansionism we infer in the universe is an inherent part of this larger play of dynamics.</p> <p>One of the most interesting and strangest outcomes of this hypothesis of the reality sphere, is the strong suggestion that we may in fact be interpenetrated by a parallel and symmetrical, or "mirror" universe. Such a universe would coexist at mutual connection points with our own physical universe even though we cannot directly apprehend it. It suggests that, among other things, if we could pass a spaceship unscathed through the core of our own sun, then we might pop-out on the other side. But this would not be the other side of our sun, but possibly the opposite side of our universe. We would be like Alice who passed through the looking glass. Everything might appear otherwise normal. It cannot be said if the suns, planets and asteroids occurring on the other side are in the exact disposition as on this side, if there even would be such entities.</p> <p>It is likely that the actual cosmography of this mirror universe would be substantially different from our own. We cannot expect that our sun would even occur in the same relations within the same antithetical Milky Way galaxy as our own. Both universes would have had their own cosmographic histories. They would be interconnected in a strange maze of twisted, tangled "worm holes." We might only notice that our absolute clock is turning counterclockwise.</p> <p>If there is a symmetrical state universe, we can predict that ultimately it is a "balanced" universe in the sense that, whatever happens on either side, whatever scientific formula we may seek to apply, we will always come out with a net balance or a conservation. We can from this infer abductively a relative, original zero-state universe from the balancing out of two contraposed non-zero-state universes.</p> <p>Of course, it is unlikely we will ever be able to design a spaceship that would allow us to travel to the other side of reality. But it does bring up the possibility of establishing some kind of contact between opposite sides of the reality sphere by either passing through the center of the sphere, (i.e., through a wormhole) or by being able to move beyond its physical perimeters or parameters. In this model, if a sizeable wormhole could be found, it might lead out to the other side, albeit in some other time and place.</p> <p>I cannot immediately test its predictions or presuppositions in the way that would be required to validate it as a correct view of our most shared world. I fall short, once again, of offering a more complete mathematical formulation of this theory, though I no longer believe that such a formulation is impossible or even so difficult to achieve. Such a formulation will be found if the theory is a correct one. Another way of saying this is that physical reality is ultimately Pythagorean in a non-linear sense. If the theory can be mathematically formulated, then it is likely to be essentially coherent, at least in some partial manner as a "covering law" model.</p> <p>In running against the grain of the received orthodoxy of standard relativistic cosmologies, we open to ourselves a vast forest of imagination for exploration. But at the same time, we place ourselves on the fringe of the received structure of things, and it is expected that society will attempt not only the marginalization of such a perspective through delegitimization, but even its annihilation as an antithetical symbolic system. This will be rationalized as self-destructive, and "psychologized" as abnormal. This is most unfortunate, as it connects the "wisdom" of our modern enlightened era with the ignorance of past periods marked by intolerance and prejudice.</p> <p>I seek herein to understand Cosmology as a scientific worldview that is the provenance of every human, and not just of some self-selective and increasingly self-serving elite. And this is not just as religious mythology. I have come to appreciate more finely not only the physical relativity of knowledge that our reality presents to us at every turn, but the larger role and function of the anthropological relativity of our knowledge in both our theories and in our everyday lives.</p> <p>Having conducted research and taught in China as a post-doctoral anthropologist, the issue of worldview became critical. The worldview of contemporary China is by state definition Marxist and Maoist, and it is, even more frighteningly, Orwellian. It is totalitarian, and no alternative views are tolerated. In such a context, one comes to appreciate greatly the role and value of a coherent world view and the symbolic coherence (or chaos) it may bring to our lives. My Chinese students <u>needed</u> desperately such an un-fragmented view of the world, in order to remain sane and whole in the course of their lives.</p> <p>Underlying the Kuhnian perspective of paradigms, is a deeper appreciation for the anthropological construction and structuration of knowledge as this occurs situated in social systems. Received points of view have social and symbolic value, and connect directly to questions of legitimization and resource structures in a larger system. It is people who do the knowing, the believing, and the science. This process is increasingly <u>academic</u> by definition, and Academia is increasingly a dependent vassal of larger political economic structures.</p> <p>American Academia has grown even more rich and powerful than it once was, and has adopted a capitalist model that at points verges upon intellectual totalitarianism. There has been a growing sense of basic discrepancy between received "correct" realities and actual realities that are a part of the common experience of everyday people. To a great extent this reinforces an increasingly closed class structure in everyday American life. The sense of loss it entails is immeasurable, because it has been a loss of possibility, potentiality and opportunity to become other than what it in fact is. This has penetrated all levels, from the most local community colleges to the largest and most prestigious research institutions in the world. Academia continues to dictate the standards of legitimacy by which the rest of us are supposed to think and spin our noetic wheels, but it increasingly fails to comprehend that knowledge cannot in the long run be bought off or monopolized or otherwise politically controlled. The superimposition of intellectual conformity and control cannot in the long run be maintained without ultimately having to resort to some kind of violence somewhere along the way.</p> <p>When I think of the current human state of affairs, especially in the United States, fraught as it has become with all its contradictions of class and privilege, competition and control, ethnic cleavage and mono-culturalism, I cannot but help think increasingly of the main theme of Erasmus's classic <u>The March of Folly</u>. The quest for truth and realism appears as powerful a call for a free and open mind now as it did back then. Scholasticism seems to be a many-headed dragon that is as self-serving now as it was then. Honesty drives this process, even at the cutting edge of self-sacrifice.</p> <p>In this comparison we are led to the liar's paradox, which has interesting implications for our understanding of both social reality and physical reality in terms of Gödel's theorem of self-referential undecidability. It goes like this: "The man from Crete said that all Cretan's are liars." We can relate these questions directly to Kantian Antinomies. We might conclude that the universe is infinite or bounded, that it is zero-state or non-zero state, or that it is has something or nothing, and we would probably be fundamentally correct either way we chose. Whatever we do decide, we must understand that we can only frame our understanding in reference to some larger metasystem of which we are ourselves and our knowledge are a part. It is the structure of this larger metasystem, defined in physical terms, with which I am interested intellectually in this work.</p> <p>In other words, it is people who compete for resources and attention, who can seek to destroy as well as create. We should not thereby confuse the social reification of our conceptual systems as this is promulgated by people with the knowledge of reality in and of itself. Any point of view must be consonant or consistent in some minimal sense with the received ideology of the social system in which such knowledge is situated. It must connect at its limits with the state's larger and more basic ideological and symbolic superstructure. In this way, I believe, we can understand better the history and great momentum that the Big Bang model has achieved in the context of a capitalist World System that cannot ultimately exclude the hand of a God.</p> <p>The Big Bang becomes like a full stop, a punctuation mark, a final symbolic barrier, to further our inquiry into the structure of physical reality. But it does not end normally in a scientific question mark that invites deeper exploration as would be expected of science. We seek closure in our worlds to keep it consistent at its margins, but science cannot work well within ultimately closed worlds.</p> <p>All the big and super-gifted number crunchers who have come to superimpose for us a stylish designer view of the physical world, complete with multicultural numerical hype, may have left something self-referential out of all their esoteric mathematical formulations. I call it the baby in the cosmic bathwater. God may or may not cast the dice, but it is certainly the contemporary physicist who is still keeping score. Reality is in the first and last analysis a natural construction that runs on its own logic independent of our abstract systems of deduction. In other words, physics demands a metaphysical framework to render a coherent and non-contradictory view of the world. Science cannot be best served otherwise. Reality is independent of our view of reality, but our knowledge cannot be independent of reality if it is to claim scientific validity.</p> <p>As an intellectual, I have rejected the role of ideology completely from a scientific worldview. We have to say, ultimately, that the universe was in some mysterious way self-creating, in a stochastic but non-isotropic sense, because God did play dice with the universe. Scientific praxis, to be true to itself, demands this ultimately. Human beings may need religion, more or less, to keep a sane grip upon their worlds. But scientists need most to find the reason for their work and their worldview in the sublime sense of order and beauty that is intrinsic to the natural ordering of reality, without any ideological implication of the supernatural.</p> <p>If the universe seemed to create itself all in one hot big bang, as most physicists now accept without question, in a cosmic "instant," then we must realize that perhaps this "instant" was without real time as we know it. It could in effect have been forever or essentially timeless. What appears "instantaneous" to us now may in fact have been in essence an eternal process, by our own relative standards at least.</p> <p>If I rain on someone's parade by suggesting this kind of possibility as scientifically reasonable, in the structure of the long run our vain-glorious parade will come to an end anyway, rain or shine. Whether the universe is expanding or shrinking, or whatever it is doing, reality will keep on spinning its wheels regardless of what we choose to believe or accept as true or not, and regardless of whether people will still be around to watch it happen.</p> <p>I find enough consolation in the sublime beauty and wonderful order of the natural world, and in our ability to know and feel this as integral to our own identity and being in the world.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Natural systems theory is based upon the notion of the natural stratification of information as self-organizing systems upon multiple, emergent levels, or in a hierarchy of systematic determinations. The excoriation of such a hierarchy permits us a framework of universal analysis within which, at each level of phenomenal patterning, there is an appropriate form and level of analysis and analytical explanation to lower levels. While such emphasis upon analysis is considered reductionist in ignoring synergistic and emergent properties of complex derivative systems, it is nevertheless true that the universe, and all of reality, follows what can be considered to be a Pythagorean structure that lends itself to quantized formulation and parsimonious description. Nevertheless, it is also always only a partial system, being always partly underdetermined as a system. Such systems are therefore always also nonlinear in their partial determinations, and as such exhibit properties that are in some fundamental sense unpredictable and uncontrollable, at least in a classic way.</p> <p>This work is therefore not just about cosmology as a scientific worldview, but also about our scientific understanding of physical reality that is concomitant to such cosmological conceptioning. How we see reality in fundamental ways determines the outcomes for our cosmological worldview, and how we view our universe determines to some extent how we come to see the essential structure of our physical reality. Reality underlies and gives substance to our cosmologies. Cosmology serves to unite and lend a framework of understanding and analytical experimentation to our view of reality.</p> <p>It becomes clear in the excoriation of this work that there is critical interaction between our conception of cosmology and our conceptual systems relating to physical reality. The feedback is mostly positive and productive of new insights into our shared experience of reality. And that is how it should be. Not everything proposed within these pages is probably correct, but almost all of it is highly suggestive and therefore remains heuristically useful in producing deeper insight that falls just short of a confirmed and uncontroversial understanding of our universe that must eventually emerge.</p> <p>Astrophysics is in a state of unsettling chaos now. Many new forms of evidence and ideas are percolating, and old covering law theories are proving inadequate by themselves to take into account all the forms of evidence. Any cosmologist must make at least a pretense at being comprehensive if she is to do her job in any complete way. But a caveat should be emphasized. Such comprehensiveness is likely to be mostly pretence and will likely remain always only partial to the whole story. And this is how it must remain.</p> <hr> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Chapter I</p> </font><font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Introduction</p> </font><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">A Revised Model of the Dynamic-State Universe</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <p><b><font size="6">D</font></b>ifferent cosmological models describe different states of the universe. These models all carry implications about the structure, size, and developmental possibilities of the universe. I have proposed a model of a dynamic state universe. The theory I have elaborated can be said to be a model of a complex state universe. It is both fundamentally dynamic and relative to a larger meta-state system. The dynamics of the universe occur at multiple, stratified levels of organization of energy and properties associated with these energy levels. The original universe could be said to have been a non-state or static-state universe in which even time or change as we experience these things did not exist. Change arose from this universe as a phenomenon of increasing stochastic differentiation. I have postulated as well what I call a symmetrical and complementary state universe, which entails that reality as we physically experience this in a positive sense has both a mirror, or symmetrical, side, as well as a negative complementary side. I believe we cannot adequately account for all phenomena we observe in the universe, particularly gravitation and gravitational phenomena, without such an hypothesis. Our normal models are primarily positive or single-state universes, and hence are inherently restrictive and blind models.</p> <p>The universe is defined scientifically as the "totality of all things, events, relations and energies" that are at least hypothetically observable. In the largest sense, the total universe encompasses and comprehends all of reality. The physical universe is contained within the total universe, and physical reality may possibly be coincidental to total reality such that the two are isomorphic within one another in every way. I refer to the inferable universe as the portions of the total universe that are knowable either directly by observation or indirectly by deductive inference based upon observable phenomena. The observable universe comprises that "sphere of observation" that we are capable of directly comprehending, at least in an ideal sense if not in any real way.</p> <p>In general, it can be considered that the observable universe is a subset of the inferable universe, which is a subset of the physical universe, which is a subset of the total universe. Implicit to each is a definition and understanding of reality that comprehends each universe. Thus, our sense of reality is directly tied to our knowledge structures as these are based upon our ability to observe and understand the universe. It remains marginally possible that these different definitions of reality and the universes they subsume are in some way intersecting sets but not true subsets of one another. But by definition, anything that is observable and hence a part of the observable universe, is also part of a larger inferable universe, and if structures can be reasonably inferred, then they are presumed to be part of an even grander entity of the total universe.</p> <p>The total universe is sometimes interchangeably referred to as the physical universe, though in this accounting there may be some "metaphysical" or para-physical phenomena that are part of a larger universe that are not strictly accounted for by known scientific means. I have undertaken in this book to offer an alternative cosmological model of the physical universe, though I do not claim it to be necessarily the total universe. I assume the total universe in the ultimate and largest sense is probably unknowable, or is what I would call a totally unknowable reality. We can never prove this to be true or false, and this is the basis for the assumption in the first place. We can only step outside of this paradox if we adopt some appropriate metaphysical framework that is consistent with science. This is much easier said than done.</p> <p>Cosmological models of the physical universe are many and varied and depend upon and serve to reinforce our scientific view of physical reality. In understanding cosmological models, I refer to alternative hypothetical states of physical reality that underlie alternative models and that inform our model building as knowledge structures in basic ways.</p> <p>My point of departure for these models is that, in whatever form the physical and total universe may exist in, it comprises a physical system that has distinctive qualities in that it is minimally ordered in some unknown and possibly unknowable way. This order leads to a partially determined pattern of integration of the universe. As a naturally occurring system, we see it involving two things. It does something, by means of which we can say it works or functions in some way, and it results in some kind of state change or changes that may be in some sense made known. As a naturally occurring system, all phenomena in physical reality, and the physical universe itself, in whole or in part, is fundamentally <u>nonlinear</u> in that we cannot directly predict the outcomes by means of a simple linear determination of the antecedents. The universe is therefore both inherently complex and chaotic.</p> <p>To summarize my point of departure for the physical universe, we can say that, in all cases, in whatever form it may take, the universe and all physical reality it contains is always at least:</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. A working or functioning system</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. Changing</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. A complex and chaotic system</p> <p>One way of looking at this is to say that phenomenal patterning of physical reality takes on many characteristic forms, much of which proves to be quite predictable when we understand the antecedents and underlying processes involved. We can call these kinds of patternings characteristic "properties" that may be systematically ascribed to various phenomena as these are found to be physically occurring. It is known that at whatever level we are observing, there is a remarkable variability and systematic structure of physical property depending upon the deterministic elements and processes that account for those properties. Often properties as definable "state events" are very discrete to a certain kind of configuration or process of elements, such that we can ascribe to them values of cardinal determinants of the underlying structure they represent. If we recognize a particular property, we can infer with great accuracy the underlying processes and elements involved.</p> <p>The ascription and prediction based upon observable properties in naturally occurring systems is perhaps best exemplified in chemistry, when different molecular configurations can produce extremely different properties, or when some new compound leads to a completely new property that has not been observed before. Such properties are perhaps less identifiable at other levels of the physical realm--if we understand electromagnetic radiation or gravitation as a complex property that is determinative of some underlying set of elements or processes, the relationship is not so obvious. The actual properties we ascribe to physical states may be themselves complex and poly-typical. For instance, we have properties of energy and mass, of inertia and momentum, of charge and spin that we normally ascribe to such physical systems. We reach a point that even the properties themselves are a byproduct of our observation of the property, such that we pose a property of superposition upon fundamental physical phenomena and we sacrifice knowledge of one kind of property for the sake of gaining knowledge of another kind of property. To suggest that at an even finer level of analysis there may occur natural properties that we have not directly observed, or at least may not be knowingly observed in any direct form, tests the very foundations of our scientific constructs of physical reality.</p> <p>It may be said that the level of completeness of a scientific domain is the degree to which it has rendered a systematic description of all properties characteristic of most of that level of analysis. We understand this most clearly in terms of the periodic table of the elements and in terms of organic chemistry. We are coming better to understand this in terms of genetic information structure, and may approach such a state of knowledge soon in reference to neurological structures of the brain. We have a surprisingly detailed and systematic knowledge of fundamental sub-atomic particles and their associated properties, given the infinitesimal character of these things, though this appears yet incomplete as a science.</p> <p>A new science is one therefore that is just becoming to discover the important properties and relations occurring in a given level of reality. A science may remain for a very long time in an initial stage of development during which it struggles to arrive at a correct "puzzle-solving" systematization of the properties that it addresses. Such systematization depends upon the development of the appropriate descriptive theory that allows and leads to such systematization. But this is not always easy to guess or discover beforehand, and is often as much the product of serendipity and chance discovery as it is of deliberate search and inference. Hence, we might still be searching for a systematic table of eco-trophic niches that underlies natural selection regimes or a similar framework by which to categorize and frame the understanding of different human cultures.</p> <p>We might impose codification tables or taxonomies, like natural taxonomies of the tree of life, or the Human Relations Area Files, or in psychiatry the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental diseases. But these are in themselves as organizations of knowledge precursors to the mature development of systematic classifications based upon a concise and predictive description of properties.</p> <p>The role of the discovery and theoretical description and methodological prediction of basic properties is important to the normalization and operationalization and self-definition of any scientific field of endeavor. Properties speak of the synergistic qualities that are emergent from the functioning of the elements in a system, and describe the relational characteristics of that system as a part of a larger order or system of relations. Properties lead to and derive from the systematic analysis of systems in terms of the composition and interaction of parts. We often find that the properties attributable to the elements are different from the properties attributable to the system as a larger composite whole.</p> <p>It appears that at each level in the stratification of natural phenomena, there are associated properties that are characteristic of the system of the whole and of the parts of that system. We set up a hierarchy of determinations, such that we go to finer and finer levels of analysis, in some larger reductionist framework, to get at the essential properties and parts that underlie all systems. As previously mentioned, a point is reached that even properties themselves become partial and relativistic to our observations.</p> <p>A level of analytical reduction is reached, as in my theories of spime mechanics and sub-spime systematics, that we must infer properties without necessarily being able to directly observe them except hypothetically by their effects upon naturally occurring phenomena. Indeed, in this cosmological model of the universe soon to be developed, I have presupposed a whole level of reality that might sit, like the undercarriage of a huge iceberg, below the surface of our observational sphere of reality. In some sense, such a presupposition might violate in a counter-intuitive manner our preconceptions about parsimony of explanation. But they emerge as neither unreasonable nor necessarily less parsimonious constructs if they lead to a fair accounting of a broad range, indeed, a comprehensive range of phenomena in some systematic manner.</p> <p>I seek to work constructively with a set of properties I regard as implicit only to the structure of physical reality. I will refer to these mostly as "state-properties" that describe some basic aspects or dimensions of the universe as a whole. Thus we may posit a plethora of alternate state-properties by which to build our cosmological models, with each set leading to different kinds of constructions. I speak of zero-state, balanced-state, symmetrical state, complementary state, universes as concepts that refer to some cardinal principles of identity and determination that are from a heuristic design standpoint somehow fundamental to our hypothetical constructs.</p> <p>Aside from various alternative state properties, there are also some event-properties that are associated with what I would call particularistic or possibilistic event-entities. These event-properties and their associated entities are part of a possibilistic continuum that I would refer to as stochastic properties we invoke to describe relative states and conditions that are not otherwise describable. In general, I invoke a kind of Einstein-Bose Statistics in the explication of co-occurring possibilities with equal probabilities. Many processes that may occur otherwise invisible and unseen in our universe may in fact occur as potentialities or possibilities in some larger frame of reference.</p> <p>A level is reached in our abstract accounting and analytical reduction of reality that we begin inferring or deducing what can best be characterized as negative and complementary properties and events. At this level, there appears always some kind of natural and inherent background to every positive change event that we can measure. In a sense, we sacrifice in our ability to measure the positive side of things, the capability to observe the complement or negative side.</p> <p>This kind of accounting by means of inferring negative properties not directly observable except by their alleged effects upon positive states, as, for instance, in the case of gravitational systems, relativizes our positive side of things in a radical way. It is based on the presupposition that in some larger framework, there is always a kind of cosmic balance sheet being maintained. This is evident in almost all naturally occurring physical phenomena, hence it is inferred in the grander scheme of things in our total cosmology.</p> <p>The notion of an ultimately balanced-state universe, in which for every positive action, there may be some negative or complementary counter-action, such that their sum is always either unity or absolute zero, implies ultimately a zero-state universe. We must see this zero-state universe as something that is ultimately relative to itself, such that the zero state value may be something that is itself continuously fluctuating about one or more dimensions of determination. Thus it is perhaps true that the final accounting is never reached, that for each event that occurs, there is some slight adjustment made in the original balance of things, such that new sets of events become predetermined.</p> <p>We can only step beyond the conundrums implied by this if we infer from it a larger quintessential universe or what I would call a "meta-state universe" that provides the frame of reference for understanding all phenomena in our physical universe. At best we might say that the meta-state is always what lies before or beyond the known universe, and hence is in any final or complete sense ultimately unknowable. It exists to prove our universe with a relativistic frame of reference that allows us to perform our accounting procedures while knowing that in the balance sheet will never come due.</p> <p>I would suggest strongly that the presupposition of a meta-state universe implies a variable-state universe, which implies, for a total universe, a quintessential state universe that is seeking some dimension or set of dimensions we do not yet realize or understand. Hence, the name for this theory, the Dynamic State Universe. The asymptotic stability of the total universe in the structure of the long run or in the largest cosmographic senses possible is open only to conjecture. The universe appears to be evolving, but we cannot guess either the direction nor the state changes of this general evolution.</p> <p>Implicit to the notion of the Dynamic State Universe is the question of equilibrium about some line of stasis. If we see the universe as a perfect perpetual motion machine, we see it in terms of virtual work within which any dynamic event pattern always occurs about some perfectly symmetrical line of stability. But the hypothesis of a perpetual state universe seems to defy our knowledge of physical systems at every level. A dynamic state universe is not synonymous or even similar to a "steady-state universe." We must see beyond the presupposition of "absolute" states as somehow fundamentally governing the universe. The presupposition of universal relativity fundamentally attaches this implicit notion of a classic cosmology. Things regarded unquestioningly as absolute become, in the larger frame of a meta-state universe, relative to the prevailing system at the moment. Ultimately, the universe is relative to itself in the most fundamental and general of senses, and we are left only with the paradox of resolving the groundless ground of physical reality.</p> <p>But, in spite of this argument, the Universe does appear to exhibit extremely remarkable forms of stability that in some ways is near perfect. It does appear to be an extremely stable structure about some kind of complex equilibrium, at least within the observational framework that we have available to ourselves. This tremendous stability, in spite of its fundamental chaos, is so remarkable in fact, that it borders on the miraculous. And this, to myself as a humble scholar, is the source of its tremendously sublime wonder and beauty.</p> <p>At this stage in our knowledge and observations, we can really only speculate about ultimate properties of the physical universe. Such properties, in some relativistic framework, must exist, and must be available to our scrutiny and understanding. But we are far from claiming our having discovered or conquered these challenges.</p> <p>I believe that what may have so far stood in the way of the unification of our understanding of physical reality and the cosmos has been our inability to fully account for some ranges of phenomena based upon presumptions of observation alone. Much of this is quite normally a part of our everyday experience in basic ways, like gravity and magnetism, because we may have unwittingly superimposed a "blind" view of reality based only upon what we can directly see or observe, rather than from what we might deductively infer or derive. We are left with Einstein's proverbial pocket fob, the movements of which we can readily observe, but the internal mechanisms for which we can only infer.</p> <p>If we can observe patterns that we do not understand, then we can infer some kind of properties that constitute these patterns and that are based upon underlying processes of a system of parts, each of which may have their own properties. In this way, if we knew enough, we might infer all of reality; hence all of science, based deductively from our observations of a single pocket watch.</p> <p>Of course, we depend greatly upon empirical inference derived from the accumulative parallax of observation of many varying patterns, most of which may be only partly related. The foundations and edifice of science is built more from the experience of inductive inference than from the wisdom of hypothetical deductionism, and hence observations are the building blocks of scientific knowledge.</p> <p>In the following work, I am not uncomfortable or compulsive about dealing with a range of phenomena that I take at best to be inferable and at worst to be only imaginable and pre-scientific. I thus offer hypothetical deductive models of cosmology and fundamental physical reality that I take to be at least heuristically suggestive if not empirically correct or accurate in any precise way. In so doing I am implicitly claiming that, in spite of all our scientific advances and sophistication, we still do not have a very clear understanding of some of the most basic and universal properties underlying our physical reality and hence informing our cosmological models of the physical universe. If nothing better, it promises a brighter future with much greater scientific progress than we have yet realized. If nothing worse, it entails that we do not necessarily have to remain scientifically satisfied with blind unquestionable dogmatism and received academic scholasticism derived from a deep symbolic history.</p> <p>We are left with the paradox of having to build cosmological models and the scientific theories they rest upon from inference structures alone that have no known observational basis and that are perhaps ultimately unverifiable at least by any direct means. This limitation alone does not completely discount such models from being scientific and valid, though it does open the door to a great deal of interpretive relativity in our models.</p> <p>In this work I offer alternative models of cosmology and conceptual constructs of physical reality that are heuristic devices in a pre-scientific and hypothetico-deductive sense. I do not necessarily claim their un-revised validity, though I do make a strong claim to their partial correctness as scientific constructs. I do not believe they are either complete or completely correct models of our reality, though I do believe they represent sound stepping stones to a more mature science of reality.</p> <hr> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Chapter II</p> </font><font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The Cosmological Principle</p> </font><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">& The Hierarchical Stratification of Physical Reality</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <p><b><font size="6">T</font></b>he standard or received cosmological model of the universe was derived directly from the geometrical conceptualization of space-time in the general theory of relativity. This cosmological model based upon general relativity is rather elegant and parsimonious, as it has stood for most of the past century, and accounts for its orthodoxy as much as the corroborative evidence that has been found. It leads to a description of the possible shape, origin and evolution of the universe on a cosmological scale.</p> <p>This cosmological scale is rooted in certain presuppositions about the universe, especially in what is referred to as the cosmological principle. In general, this received model can be interpreted as being both a single-state and a zero-state model. The cosmological principle states in general that the universe is self-consistently composed of a statistically homogeneous and isotropic distribution of mass and energy in space-time. There is no average state property of this distribution that defines a preferred region in space-time, or what can be called statistical homogeneity, or a preferred direction, or statistical non-isotropy. The universe therefore has no center or axis.</p> <p>The principle of congruence that I have adopted is implied in the cosmological principle, such that the physical properties governing the distribution and interaction of mass, energy and space-time hold in all areas. In other words, there are no known or assumable regions of the universe where different or preferred physical properties hold.</p> <p>If we take a sufficiently large sample of space-time, we have what can be considered a fairly random and average sample of distribution of galaxies of different types, elliptical, spiral or irregular. This sample would be considered statistically approximate to any other sample of the standard universe. The galaxies are also randomly oriented about their gravitational planes, and there can be no significant net angular momentum for a sufficiently large region of space as this would entail a non-isotropic region.</p> <p>Observable data tends to support this hypothesis, and by itself it does not discount significant local distortions or stochastic variations of unlimited magnitude. It states a kind of equilibrium line of asymptotic stability of normal space-time in the large. Observations of blackbody radiation and cosmic radiation in the background appear to be fairly isotropic.</p> <p>The cosmological principle implies an ideal-state cosmological model of the universe in which all local departures from its average equilibrium are canceled out, and the density of matter and energy in the universe is regarded as constant in the large.</p> <p>Before proceeding with my dynamic state model, it is important to note several facets about the cosmological principle. In general, universal congruence determines that in a sufficiently large sample, we would expect some form of isotropic equilibrium and homogeneity of overall structure, in spite of many possible localized variations. But this question begs the underlying question of an infinite state universe, and in the standard model implies a finite state universe. In other words, we cannot tell arbitrarily what a sufficiently large sample may consist of in terms of some larger frame of reference. This is a basis for the presupposition of universal relativity of the dynamic state universe.</p> <p>It is clear that the cosmological principle holds for the most part within the observational sphere of our point of view. It is derived from observational data, and is clearly definable within the parameters of what may be called the observable universe. The problem is that the inferable universe may, at least in theory, include a larger region of reality than that encompassed by the observational sphere embraced by the cosmological principle. I would argue furthermore, as a basis for universal relativity and the extension of the principle of universal congruence of physical properties, that the total universe is an instantaneous universe, or occurs with universal simultaneity, though this is always totally unobservable to us. In the course of this work, I will demonstrate clearly how the observable universe is not isomorphic with the instantaneous or the inferable universe.</p> <p>I would claim that the cosmological principle holds true for most if not all of the observational sphere of the universe, though with increasing depth of resolution, it is increasingly possible that the principle is less true. I would offer a revised form of the cosmological principle, and say that:</p> <p>1. <u>For the total instantaneous universe, there is some larger, relative form of homogeneity and equilibrium of structure though we may not yet understand this cosmographic structure completely.</p> <p>2. For the larger sphere of physical reality as this actually occurs and has always occurred, there may be some kind of fundamental non-isotropy and congruence of physical properties, though we may not yet understand this cosmological structure fully.</p> </u> <p>I will not claim that the observable homogeneity and non-isotrop nature of the observational sphere that we currently exist within necessarily holds equally true everywhere and for all time. I would furthermore state that our understanding of this cosmological principle is perhaps also constrained by our own relativistic understanding of physical reality, such that it's presuppositions are partial and therefore incomplete.</p> <p>In general, I would hold forth that the standard model is based upon a nearly perfect linear conception of space-time and cosmological structure. Furthermore, it describes only the observational sphere of our own relative position in the universe.</p> <p>I would claim, for a number of reasons to be elucidated in the next chapter, that we must conclude that all physical phenomena in the long run and in the large follow a non-linear state-path trajectory, including the universe itself. Furthermore, I assert emphatically and unequivocally that the observational sphere may have intrinsic relativistic constraints and limitations set upon our point of view that make it impossible to prove or disprove the standard and un-revised form of the cosmological principle.</p> <p>The standard and received cosmology comprehends the universe as a kind of gas cloud in which galaxies are like atoms. This defines an extremely large cosmological scale, though we cannot guess what the actual scale may really be, especially if we suppose an infinite-state universe. The cosmological principle defines the cosmological scale such that it is substantially and mechanically the same in all directions and at all points.</p> <p>Within such an ideal isotropic-state universe defined by the standard cosmological principle, there are possible three kinds of motion, and these three possible directions lead to three types of cosmographic structure which are variants of the three-dimensional Robertson-Walker metric. The three types of possible motion are:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. No motion at all.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. Spatially uniform contraction.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. Spatially uniform expansion.</p> <p>I will assert that in the larger structure of the inferable universe based upon a dynamic or dynamical state model, all three forms of motion may be co-occurring at the same time, in locally differentiated regions, and upon larger regional and interregional scales. This appears to violate the cosmological principle, and leads to a revision of this principle.</p> <p>In an expanding or contracting model of the standard isotropic-state universe, the relative velocity of any two material particles or points is proportional to the distance between the two particles, and this yields a two-dimensional analog of the spheroid surface of an expanding balloon. In the motionless model, we assume a standard uniform hyperplane.</p> <p>These three possibilities lead to three subtypes of the Robertson-Walker metric, known respectively as:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. The Hyper-plane, or the three-dimensional analog of a two-dimensional plane surface.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. The Hyper-sphere, or the 3-D analog of the surface of a sphere.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. The Hyper-pseudosphere, or the 3-D analog of a negative curvature of an inverted sphere, that cannot be simply visualized in two-dimensional geometry.</p> <p>A certain measure of uniformity underlies all three subtypes, and the subtypes are derivative of the values assigned to the variables of this measure. This measure has come to be known as the Hubble constant, and is the constant of proportionality that has dimensions (time)<sup>-1</sup>.</p> <p>The Hubble constant (H) is given as the fractional change of wavelength of light spectrums from a galaxy at distance L, and is given by:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">HL/c</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>This number H is related to the scale factor of Friedmann model universes derived from solutions to Einstein's general field equations for the Robertson-Walker metric. The observational value of 1/H of 2 x 10<sup>10</sup> provides a rough measure of the age of the universe by the standard isotropic-state model.</p> <p>Observational cosmology has involved the measurement of two important numbers, the Hubble constant, or H, and the deceleration parameter, or q<sub>0</sub>. This parameter determines whether the expansion of the universe is uniform (q<sub>0 </sub>= 1/2), decelerated (q<sub>0 </sub>> 1/2), or accelerated (q<sub>0 </sub>< 1/2), corresponding respectively to the three subtypes of the Robertson-Walker metric given above. Most cosmologists favor values greater than 1/2, though recent evidence suggests otherwise.</p> <p>The Hubble constant is based observationally upon the uniformity of expected red shifting of light spectra, which is interpreted as the Doppler effect upon light as a result of recession of the source. The red shift is the systematic displacement toward longer wave-lines of lines in the spectra of distant galaxies, as well as of the continuous portions of the spectrum. Red shifts have two fundamental properties:</p> <p>1. Fractional red shift is independent of wavelength, verified within the ranges of the radio radiation of neutral hydrogen atoms to the visible light spectrum, and is interpreted as evidence of galactic recession, as no other known mechanism explains the phenomenon.</p> <p>2. Red shift is correlated with apparent magnitude such that when red shift is interpreted as recession velocity and apparent magnitude with distance, the speed of recession is proportional to the distance, and is the basis of the Hubble constant.</p> <p>Red shifts observed equivalent to 1/5 the speed of light have been observed, and the red shifts of quasars are even greater, though this has been interpreted alternatively as predicted Einstein shifts that are the result of abnormally strong gravitational fields. The Einstein shift is predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity, and is the shifting to longer wavelengths of atomic spectra in the presence of strong gravitational fields. This results from the slowing down of periodic processes in the presence of strong gravitation, and the amount of Einstein shift is proportional the difference of gravitational potential between sender and receiver. Some attempts are made to explain observed red shifts on the basis of Einstein shifts, but the distinguishing between Doppler and pressure effects in spectral lines is difficult, and it has been determined as separable for known sources.</p> <p>In the model I offer what I consider to be several alternative variants of the Einstein shift as an explanation of the observed red shift. These depend upon a reinterpretation of gravitation within a framework of universal relativity, rather than general relativity. In fact, there are possible several different mechanical explanations for the red shift other than the Doppler effect, and any of these do not have the space-time conundrums that are implicit to the interpretation of the galactic recession.</p> <p>The Hubble constant is the rate of increase of the inferred velocity of recession of galaxies as a proportion of distance, according to the standard isotropic state model. The value is given as approximately 17km/sec per 10<sup>6</sup> light-years, plus or minus at least 10%. It is given variously as between 20 and 60 km/sec per 10<sup>6</sup> light-years. It was established observationally by Edwin Hubble in 1929, hence its name. It is regarded as the best evidence of the expansion of the universe, which was predicted by Einstein's own cosmological model. This expansion is not apparent in locally defined regions characterized by exceptionally strong gravitational fields, within galactic clusters, for instance. But as greater depth is measured, these local regional perturbations of the general pattern become a rapidly decreasing fraction of the total measured velocity.</p> <p>The best approximations of the Hubble constant would hypothetically be derivable from local observations based upon brightness and luminosity and spectral components, but the non-homogeneity of local distributions and the non-isotropic effects of local gravitational fields prevent this measurement from being made. Thus, the Hubble constant may exist on a gradient relating to the relative distribution on larger cosmological scales, though no evidence for such a gradient has yet been found. The recessional velocity appears in the larger samples taken in different sectors of the universe to be:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. Regular</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. Linear</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. Isotropic</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">4. Relatively non-random</p> <p>Attempts are continuously applied to study the long-term change of the Hubble constant by studying spectral lines of very distant and very bright sources. The received model based upon these observations placed the age of the observable universe at 14 x 10<sup>9</sup> light-years, plus or minus 1 billion, with another interval for their formation estimated variously between virtual instantaneity of a hot-big bang model, to 1 to 4 billion years for colder evolutionary models. Given these ages and the value of the Hubble constant, it has been determined that this data is consistent with a value of zero for the deceleration parameter, suggesting that the expansion will never stop.</p> <p>The challenge of this model is the relativity of space-time, and the uncertainty involved in inferring the current disposition of the universe from past points of observation. This challenge is taken up further in this work as critical to our understanding of the universe. The three-dimensional Robertson-Walker constructs are cast in a 4th dimension that is time-dependent. This is the single arbitrary metrical scale factor. Thus the three-space of the galactic atoms occurs in a fourth temporal dimension that relates the constant coordinate distance between galaxies to a physically meaningful distance. In the standard isotropic-state model, space-time is uniform in the large and in the long run, and is a measure of both distance and age. In a contracting or expanding hyper-spherical metric, the universe exists on the surface of a balloon in three dimensions that is expanding or contracting in the fourth dimensional frame of reference, but which has no intrinsic boundaries. It is finite yet unbounded, which seems metaphysically paradoxical.</p> <p>Einstein field equations enter into the interpretation of the standard isotropic-state universe by providing a differential equation for the metric scale factor, though these equations cannot determine the type of metric, which remains an observational problem.</p> <p>In 1922 Friedman obtained two solutions for the field equations representing the special case of the pressure of "galactic gas" being negligible compared to its density, which model is realistic of the present and immediate sphere, but not for very distant and very early spheres. Einstein himself assumed on observational criteria that the universe was static and showed that there could be no solution of the field equations consistent with this assumption of a static state. He invoked the cosmological constant by adding an extra term to the equations in order to provide a state of uniform equilibrium in the cosmological construct of space-time. Friedmann's solutions were non-static and remained consistent with the cosmological principle. In 1932 Einstein and Willem de Sitter demonstrated a third solution, but proved that there could be no other solutions. The Friedmann solutions offer a model of curved space-time; the Einstein-de Sitter model provides a flat space-time.</p> <p>These three solutions of the general field equations yield the following properties for the three subtypes of the Robertson-Walker metric:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. For the Hyper-plane model, the scale factor increases from zero and becomes indefinitely large.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. For the Hyper-spherical model, the scale factor increases from zero, reaches a maximum and then contracts back to zero.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. For the Hyper-pseudospherical model, the scale factor increases from zero, and becomes indefinitely large, changing more rapidly than in the hyper-plane case.</p> <p>In all these models, the universe begins with an explosive "big bang" and expands, such that for the earliest epoch the behavior of the scale model is almost identical for all three models. Observational evidence remains ambiguous as to the current disposition of the inferable universe derived from these dynamical alternatives.</p> <p>It is evident and important to remark before proceeding that the standard isotropic-state model of the universe is a zero-state model. It is also, implicitly, therefore a finite-state model in some larger, bounded sense. In other words, it presupposes a zero-point beginning that is relatively violent as a cosmic moment, for the entire universe. It also implies therefore, that there is some outward limit of the expanding universe.</p> <p>Einstein's cosmological models yield time-evolutionary solutions for the universe before observational evidence of the Doppler shift was discovered. The adoption of the cosmological constant was consistent with the lack of observational evidence. Subsequent to the discovery of the red shift, until very recently, this term has been seen as unnecessary to account for static-state universes, based upon observational validation of the model of universal expansion, and was regarded by Einstein himself as his greatest theoretical blunder.</p> <p>The Einstein-de Sitter universe expands from an infinitely condensed state at time t = 0 at a rate such that the density varies at 1/t<sup>2</sup>. The Hubble constant is inversely proportional to the product of G, Newton's gravitational constant, and the density. Euclidean geometry remains unaltered, such that the volume of a sphere of radius r equals 4/3<font FACE="Times New Roman">πr</font><sup>3</sup> and matter expands infinitely at all times.</p> <p>The Friedmann model with negative space curvature behaves similarly to the Einstein-de Sitter model, expanding indefinitely from an infinitely condensed state, but the density falls off faster with time, with the reciprocal of the Hubble constant being between t and 1.5t, depending upon the exact curvature. The universe extends infinitely at all times, but the geometry is non-Euclidean, with the volume of the sphere being greater than the standard Euclidean formula 4/3<font FACE="Times New Roman">πr</font><sup>3</sup>.</p> <p>The opposite Friedmann model with positive curvature does not expand independently but reaches a degree of maximum distension or minimum density, from which it reverses and begins contracting, which phase is equal in duration to the expansion phase, return the universe to its original zero state. This lends itself to a cyclical longer view of the universe that is metaphysically appealing. The value of t in this model is less than in the other two models, and the density of matter is greater. The curvature of the model is a closed space, such that it is a finite-state universe, though it has non-Euclidean geometry of a spherical volume less than 4/3<font FACE="Times New Roman">πr</font><sup>3</sup>.</p> <p>The retention of the cosmological constant yields other possible models. Alternative cosmological models have been offered by Paul Dirac in 1938, and also by H. Bondi, Gold and Fred Hoyle in 1948.</p> <p>The Dirac model is metaphysically appealing and elegant, and has some corroboration from observational evidence though it conflicts with some aspects of physical theory. It points up, among other things, the relativity of general relativity, and the inherent observational and theoretical constraints of the received isotropic state model. The Dirac Model is based upon the observation of a dimensionless number of the order of 10<sup>39</sup> that can be derived as the ratio between electrostatic force and gravitational force between a proton and an electron, and, alternatively, as the reciprocal of the Hubble constant in atomic units of time. Dirac postulates a near permanent equality between these two combinations that reflect physical quantities, and this leads to three possibilities. Either:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. The strong coupling atomic constants are not all constant in time,</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. Newton's gravitational constant is not constant in time,</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. The universe is in a steady state.</p> <p>Dirac's cosmology proceeds from the second alternative above, and leads to the hypothesis that the gravitational constant, G, is dynamic and changing. The Brans-Dicke field theory of gravitation developed in 1961 conforms to Mach's principle, a general philosophical principle that states that the motion of a particle is only significant in reference to the rest of the matter in the universe. Geometrical or inertial properties are meaningless in an empty universe devoid of any matter. Thus the behavior of any particle is determined by the total distribution of matter and should not appear as intrinsic to the property of the empty space it contains. Hence, physical constants are relative to position distribution of matter. According to the Brans-Dicke field theory, the expansion of the universe causes a decrease in the gravitational constant, or G. The gravitational field is thus described by a tensor and a scalar, with the equations of motion being identical to general relativity theory. The scalar field leads to an arbitrary constant whose value is unknown. In the late sixties, Dicke invoked observational evidence of the trajectory of Mercury and the oblateness of the Sun for his theory. This evidence accords with Dirac's cosmology, and leads to the view that as the gravitational fields grow weaker, mass-bodies like the earth, the moon, and the sun, are becoming less dense and wider in spherical diameter than otherwise expected.</p> <p>The Holye-Bondi-Gold steady-state model rest upon the hypothesis that the statistical properties and description of the physical universe remains in equilibrium in spite of its expansion. Hence new galaxies will be created at a regular rate to fill in the new spaces of the universe. This creation is alleged to occur as the result of the continuous production of new hydrogen atoms per quantity of space-time. This model is related to Holye's theory of star formation based upon specific binding energies intrinsic to hydrogen gas clouds that contract under their own gravitation to a temperature near 10<sup>4</sup> K. At this temperature, it attains its own equilibrium with its own specific binding energy. But it cannot remain in this equilibrium state indefinitely, because temperature would have to increase. Hence the cloud contracts. A cloud in less than equilibrium will, according to this theory, break up into smaller clouds in self-gravitating equilibrium. This process will recur repeatedly until the fragments are so dense that they are no longer transparent to their own radiation. Gravitational contraction offsets then radiation loss, and the net result is hierarchical stratification of astronomical bodies.</p> <p>This conflicts with the principle of energy conservation, but the discrepancy is alleged to be minor. It predicts a different relation between red shift and apparent magnitude the differences of which are upon the borderline of observability.</p> <p>The steady-state model conflicts with the existence of background blackbody radiation, and hence is not regarded as a viable model, though it does have some logically attractive aspects.</p> <p>Cosmic blackbody radiation is observed to be fairly uniform and isotropic throughout the background of the observational sphere of the universe. Discovered first in 1965, it has subsequently been shown to range between 20 cm and 9 mm in wavelength, and is consistent with the model of thermal blackbody radiation at a temperature of 2.7 degrees Kelvin. The mean energy density of about 10<sup>-12</sup>erg/cm<sup>3</sup> exceeds the mean density of all other forms of energy in the universe, with the exception of the energy associated with rest mass associated with Einstein's formula E = mc<sup>2</sup>, which lies between 10<sup>-9 </sup>and 10<sup>-8</sup> erg/cm<sup>3</sup>. The number density of photons in the blackbody radiation is extremely high, about 600/ cm<sup>3</sup>, compared to interstellar star-light photon density of 1/ cm<sup>3</sup>, and cosmic number density of protons of about 10<sup>-6 </sup>to 10<sup>-5</sup>. Any cosmic particles entering this blackbody distribution interact with it, extracting energy from electrons of the particles and producing cosmic rays. Gamma rays interact with blackbody photons to produce electron-positron pairs. Other interactions of atomic nuclei and protons are also known to occur.</p> <p>A blackbody is an ideal thermal radiator that emits in each part of the electromagnetic spectrum the maximum energy obtainable per unit time from any radiator due to its temperature alone. A blackbody also absorbs all energy incidental to it. Real radiators are defined by two extreme conditions; that of a perfect reflector and a perfect absorber. These ideal conditions are never realized. Blackbody is the name derived from a perfect absorber of radiation, like carbon or soot, which appear black at room temperature.</p> <p>The cosmological implication of this isotropic microwave background is that the only known means of its production is by interaction with matter. Dark matter is one observation of the physical universe. The present-day universe, at least in its theoretically understood state, could not have produced such a background. Hence, the steady-state universe, which hypothesizes that present conditions always prevailed, is seen as being inimical to this evidence. Furthermore, the present universe appears nearly perfectly transparent to microwave radiation.</p> <p>The blackbody spectrum might have been created at an earlier state of a relativistic universe that was in a condensed state that was not transparent to microwave radiation. The present blackbody background would be a permanent residual effect, with only its average temperature gradually decreasing with inferred expansion of the universe.</p> <p>Looking deep in time should show increasing background energy relative to matter, and the two fields were presumed equal about 10<sup>4</sup> years after the big bang. Previously, the universe would have been dominated mostly by energy. George Gamow put forward a theory demanding such an energy dominated cosmology in 1948, relating the formation of the chemical elements in the initial stages of cosmic expansion and implying the presence of a blackbody radiation field of much greater temperature than evident today. Current temperatures imply a cosmic abundance of helium of 28% by weight. Alternatively, the blackbody background is alleged to have been created by a phase of supernovae generation early in the cosmic expansion period, producing as well heavier elements that constituted condensation seeds. It postulates as well that a great deal of "missing mass" may be bound in spent super novae cores that are non-radiant.</p> <p>The problem of "missing mass" has led to the question of dark matter in the universe. Dynamical arguments based upon inferred recession of galaxies yield values of total mass for the universe much greater than estimates based upon observational counts of visible galaxies. The inference is that these galaxies contain a high proportion of non-luminous matter, or dark matter. Still, the presence of dark matter, evident by black body radiation, remains unsolved and unexplained.</p> <p>Last, but not least, is Oskar Klein's theory of the meta-galaxy, which do not take the cosmological principle as the starting point. In this model, the visible universe is part of a larger but finite and bounded system called a meta-galaxy, and this belongs to a larger system and so on, ad infinitum. Originally the meta-galaxy existed at much lower densities that present and contained equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. The meta-galaxy collapsed, releasing large amounts of energy, until the collapse reversed. It explains Dirac's coincidence between the two dimensionless numbers, though it does not sufficiently explain the possible separation of matter and anti-matter on a large scale.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>Given this accounting of cosmology, I will state that almost all the theories given above hold some degree of truth, and all the theories, as covering law models, are only partial explanations. The alternative cosmological model I offer borrows from almost all these models, even the steady state model, and yet, I put forward, it retains its overall parsimony once its basic principles are comprehended and their implications made clear. I offer an alternative cosmology that takes as its departure a revised cosmological principle that is based upon a paradigm of the principles of universal relativity.</p> <p>The foundations for my dynamic-state model of the universe are rooted in the principles of universal relativity. These principles represent a basic revision of the cosmological principle, such that the universe in a larger frame of reference, which I take to be similar to Klein's theory, is a meta-state system. Thus, homogeneity and isotropy of the observable universe are relative properties that cannot be assumed in the largest and deepest physical context, at least not without some major modifications. In general, the universe is basically non-linear and unstable in the larger structure of the long run. This accords with the observation of all mechanical systems that obey thermodynamic laws.</p> <p>I will postulate a model that demonstrates an alternative and adequate explanation of red shift, and that explains both blackbody radiation and dark matter. I will account for the changing value of the gravitational constant, and explain the evolution of the universe.</p> <p>This model was derived from a set of observations about the normal physical structure of the universe:</p> <p>1. Normal gravitational radiation, even from a gravity system like the earth, appears to be non-thermodynamic in character. Gravitation therefore cannot be accounted for strictly in terms of the mass-system that contains it. There is intrinsically a problem of missing mass.</p> <p>2. Normal space-time appears to interact with mass-systems and energy systems in complex relativistic ways, and yet is basically an "empty" construct, like a glass that holds water. In terms of theory, it has no intrinsically defining properties except those relativistic properties derived from the considerations of energy and mass systems contained within it.</p> <p>3. Normal physical properties of motion, time and energy permit no discontinuities of structure. There can be no fundamental or sudden lapses of structural order in the universe. Time always travels in one direction, and things always travel in one direction.</p> <p>These observations led to a fundamental conclusion that we must amend our basic conception of space-time to account for gravitational phenomena in a more consistent and non-discontinuous manner. Essentially, my conclusion is that:</p> <p>A. Gravitation arises not from matter or mass-systems, but from the space-time construct itself, and is intrinsic to this structure. Therefore:</p> <p>1. The interactions between space-time and the matter and energy it contains are complex in ways that lead to a revision of thermodynamics to account for gravitational-mass dynamics.</p> <p>2. Space-time is not an empty structure containing energy and matter, like a glass containing water and ice. Space-time is itself composed of some invisible substance that I call spime and that interacts with energy and matter to produce normal gravitational effects.</p> <p>3. The substance of space-time is essentially equivalent to the substance of energy and matter, as a mass-based system, such that there is a fundamental unity of structure between them.</p> <p>There have been many spin-offs of this spime-mechanical theory of the space-time construct. It has led to:</p> <p>1. The postulation of principles of universal relativity governing change and continuity of structure in the physical universe.</p> <p>2. The postulation of a unified field theory that construes all forms of energy or force naturally occurring in the universe to be variant properties tied to particularistic-entities and interacting within a larger universal field. Essentially, all force is composed of a "zeroth force" associated with a peculiar "zeroth entity" and which can be referred to as "quintessence."</p> <p>3. A cosmological model of the dynamic state universe that is inherently complex.</p> <p>I will postulate a relative zero-state universe and a relative isotropic state universe, and these relative values are essentially equivalent in any realizable system as non-zero state and non-isotropic state universes in the larger meta-system. I would claim that stochastic differentiation of the universe as a minimally organized system or meta-system can be the only reasonable and most realistic explanation of our cosmogony. There is no reason in our observations of the structure of cosmographic patterning not to assume increasing and infinite stochastic differentiation. This principle ultimately contradicts the initial assumption of the cosmological principle. It is therefore expected that there are larger order non-isotropic patterns occurring in the universe that are basically beyond our observational sphere, but which can be directly deduced from the correct mechanical model of physical reality. I would claim that my model of the universe proceeds from the following presuppositions and observational evidence:</p> <p>1. The total universe is simultaneously co-occurring and hence universally instantaneous. We cannot observe the total universe, or even most of the current state universe, by conventional or known means. We must infer it as implicit to our understanding of reality as cosmologically continuous and consistent.</p> <p>2. Space-time, as a relativistic construct, is essentially isomorphic with the energy and matter it contains, such that there is continuous interaction between these three alternative physical states. This explains gravitation and gravity systems as relativistic fields and accounts for the omnipresent background of blackbody radiation and dark matter, which is assumed to be the negative self-mass of space-time itself. We can substitute this model for a Machian universe as well, thus assuming that events can occur even in otherwise "empty space-time."</p> <p>3. Relativistic space-time constraints affect our observational sphere, but are themselves relative to the variable structure of space-time itself in a larger frame of reference, such that the universal integrity of the instantaneous universe can be assumed regardless of our observational or other physical space-time constraints. It leads to the notion of instantaneity of co-occurring events as being governed by some kind of "action at a distance" which is interpreted as a form of "gravitational well system."</p> <p>4. We may infer a complex and multi-state universe that is infinite and unending, and that is in the larger structure non-isotropic with our own observable universe, which is interpreted as being a positive physical state-universe.</p> <p>5. The positive physical state universe that we exist within is possibly expanding within its own observable sphere, though this cannot be observed directly by means of the alleged Doppler effect. The red shift of light that appears everywhere uniform with increasing depth of field is interpreted as the long-term asymptoptic instability of light as a self-propagational field system itself, within a space-time manifold that is expanding. In other words, it is a property intrinsic to light in the long run, and such shifting is expected to increase with increasing depth-distance and normal expansion of space-time. Instead, I would claim that universal expansion can be accounted for as an expectation of a model of the universe that is continuously dynamic and growing in its own intrinsic chaos. It suggests that there is possibly a huge gravitational vortex that is decentralized and interstitial in character, in which space-time is flooding out and galactic systems are "pulling away" from one another continuously. Because it is and always was infinite, the continuous expansion of the universe leads to a polynomial expansion or inflation of its state-complexity and state-dynamics.</p> <p>In order to more fully account for this alternative model, I will attempt to summarize what I regard as the intrinsic short-comings of a big bang cosmology and the related cosmological principles, as well as the limitations of general relativity itself to account for all observable or possible phenomena. At the same time, I attempt to explain as thoroughly and as summarily as possible what I consider to be the most important presuppositions of a dynamic-state cosmology. Then I attempt to explain this alternative model, and to demonstrate its relationship to basic properties of physical reality that are inferable and derivative from it, particularly regarding gravitation and energy fields.</p> <p>Before leaving off, I wish to take into account one more aspect of general and standard cosmology that I believe to be important to its conceptualization. It has to do with the stochastic and hierarchical distribution of physical phenomena, entities and event structures in the observational universe. Non-uniformity is a common feature of the astronomical universe, and appears to occur on every level. The standard isotropic-state universe presumes this observational stratification of naturally occurring phenomena as but deviations about a common equilibrium line. This is true, but it does not necessarily lead to the presuppositions of the cosmological principle. The standard cosmological model, in other words, presumes a self-consistent universe, which implies, among other things, a zero-state, a finite or bounded state, and a fundamental element. On the other hand, both extensive and intensive observational evidence presents at every level and at every point a compositional or constituent model of physical reality that is complex at any level of reductive analysis or emergent state properties. Thus, we find super galaxies, galactic clusters, galaxies, star systems, planetary systems, asteroids, and then, if we want to go the other direction, we find intensive atoms, subatomic particles and even possibly constituent or parton models of these. This hierarchical stratification of naturally occurring physical phenomena, indeed, of all naturally occurring systems, suggests that thee is an inherent tendency or a basic state property toward non-uniformity of physical pattern or structure that is manifest universally over a wide range of conditions.</p> <p> </p> <p>The consequence of this observation, which proceeds from the hypothesis of universal congruence of physical properties, is to conclude that there can be no non-relativistic frame of reference in relativistic cosmology for the cosmological principle to be ultimately defined within. This is especially true considering the space-time constraints of our observational sphere that prevents us from ever knowing the exact instantaneous distribution of the contemporaneous universe. In other words, we cannot know what a statistically large sample should be to be sufficient for our cosmological model. There is remarkable uniformity and isotropic structure above the super-cluster level, at least within our observational sphere. But this observational sphere is tied to a remote past and is itself is of inherently uncertain size. The uniformity and isotropic structure we are capable of observing is not directly a statement of distance. In other words, is the observational sphere smaller, larger or equal to the Euclidean sphere its depth of focus determines. Thus, the isotrope structure and homogeneity apparent to the observational universe is as much a statement of historical continuity of cosmological structure through time as it is an inferable statement of cosmographic continuity of structure across instantaneous space.</p> <p>Even so, this sense of great space-time depth that the observational sphere encompasses may be but a small cross-section of a much larger and deeper system that we call the universe. If the principle of universal congruence is to apply in the largest system possible, hierarchy of structure must be a part of this larger system at every level.</p> <p>Furthermore, one basic conclusion that comes from these speculations about cosmology is to state that, just because we do not see or notice it, does not mean that it is not there.</p> <p>We cannot see the exactly contemporaneous disposition of the universe, but we infer its existence by what continuity of structure we do observe. We may not be able to see all the mass and energy embedded in space-time in any direct way, just as we cannot normally see the air molecules that give to wind its great erosive force and power. But we can infer its existence from the pressure effects it does have upon our world. And so it is that we must now proceed in constructing a new model of our universe.</p> <p>I bring into question the received cosmological principles and their derivation from Einstein's general field equations, as an insufficient model of the inherent dynamics of the space-time construct. Relativistic properties are attributed to this construct, but these properties themselves may well be relative to a larger physical frame of reference. In other words, presuppositions of universal homogeneity and isotrope structure are fine for our observational sphere of the physical universe, but they do not embrace or account for those possible phenomena that occur beyond this sphere in either an extensive or an intensive sense.</p> <p>One central issue is the problem of gravitation. I offer a spime-gravitational dynamic model that shows the effect of gravitation and gravity-fields to be a complex set of interactions between the normal space-time construct and the energy and matter that is a part of that field. These effects give rise to thermodynamics, but they are themselves essentially non-thermodynamic. In other words, thermodynamic phenomena are a subset of this larger realm of spime-gravitational dynamics.</p> <p>If we posit that gravitation travels at the speed of light, then we are left with the conundrum that our own gravitational sphere can be no greater than our observational sphere. If this was the case, then we could not assume instantaneity of a co-occurring, contemporaneous universe, and this would violate our principle of universal congruence by introduce a realm of discontinuities of structure. Gravitational radiation must be seen as different from either the effects of spime induction and replacement occurring in gravity systems, or from the production of gravitational waves in space-time as a result of perturbation of gravitational field lines in this construct. Furthermore, I propose that normal space-time gravitation as we understand this is not a uniform and isotrop phenomenon. It is a variable in complex ways and therefore permits other types of motion than is assumable within the relativistic field equations. The relativistic field equations are therefore held to be covering law models governing a narrow range of physical phenomena that occur normally within our observational fields.</p> <p>We may speculate that what we normally refer to as gravitational energy, as composed of gravitons and behaving in ways very similar to light energy, albeit on a much weaker scale, is a positive form of expression of another form of gravitational energy. This energy is embedded within the structure of space-time itself, and that I call negative gravitational energy. It arises from the normal and non-reciprocal interaction between space-time and matter. Gravitation as a field system that occurs naturally in the universe constitutes therefore a well system that is essentially bottomless.</p> <p>Furthermore, I would claim that this negative gravitational energy naturally occurs at velocities much greater than the speed of light, and in its quintessential sense, is instantaneous. Only by this means can we presuppose that the contemporaneous universe that exists fundamentally beyond our sphere of observation continues to hold itself together in some predictable way.</p> <p>We may therefore conclude that invisible boundaries naturally occur in the universe in the structure of space-time. These boundaries are a function primarily of distance and energy, and that are otherwise invisible to us and fundamentally beyond our sphere of observation. We may further conclude that space-time is not a static phenomena, and is capable of perturbation and stochastic motions that are not consistent with Einstein's general field equations or with received relativistic cosmological models. Spime normally appears to flow through the universe, giving to the entire space-time construct an intrinsically dynamic property.</p> <p>We may say that this flow in the largest sense is directionally isotropic and probably random, but in even large regional senses that embrace our own observational sphere, it is probably quite non-isotropic.</p> <p>The expansion of the universe is therefore an apparent phenomenon that encompasses our observational sphere but which may not include the total universe. We can say that the Gravitational constant is deflating, and this is giving rise to the expansion of the space-time construct, but this pattern is normal and in a state of much greater equilibrium than we realize. This is an expected long-term outcome of any spime-gravitational system that has natural dynamic properties.</p> <p>Finally, we must begin with basic precepts that we perhaps cannot ever prove, but which seem necessary:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">1. The universe is infinite.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">2. There cannot be nothing.</p> <p>If we imagine some zero-state, then we must ask, what happened before and what gave rise to that zero-state. If we imagine some bounded and hence intrinsically finite system, we must ask, what lies outside of or beyond those bounds. We cannot logically do otherwise. The leap of faith towards a sea of infinity is much sounder than the leap of faith to a finite island in a larger unknown sea.</p> <p>I attack relativistic cosmology with a relativistic meta-cosmology. I claim that what is construed as relative, largely based upon the principle of equivalence between energy and mass, is itself relative to a larger more universal frame of reference based upon the principle of the equivalence of both energy and mass to the space-time construct itself. The big bang cosmology can be seen as derivative of Einsteinian relativity, and hence is very parsimonious within this theoretical system. Yet it leads to some logical contradictions and observational paradoxes that prove impossible to reconcile.</p> <p>In general, I will summarize what I consider to be the primary shortcomings of a big bang model:</p> <p>1. It is impossible that we can observe in the depths of space-time the big bang, if our own system was itself a part of that event. In order to do this, we must assume several things about light propagation that is unreasonable to assume:</p> <p>a. Light eventually travels in perfect circles, and is itself linearly perfect. Then we have a paradox of looking down a well of mirrors, of seeing a continuously repeating big bang.</p> <p>b. The observational sphere in backward time must not widen to embrace larger regions, but must eventually shrink to embrace a focal region.</p> <p>It seems more reasonable to assume that light does not travel uniformly in perfect circles, but, as a natural thermodynamic phenomenon, is in its long-term state-trajectory actually non-linear. It also seems more reasonable to assume that with increasing depth of time resolution of our observational sphere, we are in fact embracing ever wider, not ever narrower, regions of space-time.</p> <p>2. Red shift cannot directly be a measure of recession, because recession must imply a unidirectional phenomenon and space-time expansion is omni-directional. Directly, red shift must be a measure of this space-time expansion as it is omni-directionally experienced as a function of distance. In a relativistic frame of reference, galaxies aren't going anywhere very fast, but the space between them is increasing. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that red shift is a function not of the source that created the light, but of the properties of the space-time medium through which the light is propagated. This suggests the following:</p> <p>a. The space-time medium of light propagation constitutes a field system that has a non-linear influence upon light passing through it. This is consonant with the idea that space-time is a "non-empty" substance with its own intrinsic properties.</p> <p>b. Light, as a field system, is self-propagative in ways that are independent of its source or receiver. Hence, light is also, in the long run, non-linear.</p> <p>3. The space-time relativity of light entails that we cannot know the exact contemporaneous disposition of the instantaneous universe, though we must conclude that this contemporaneous universe coexists with our own world. If gravitational phenomena are an intrinsic part of this space-time relativity and gravitation is constrained by the parameter of the speed of light, then the gravitational sphere we infer must be exactly isomorphic with the sphere of observation we are observing. This leads to a conundrum that there is no direct gravitational relation between co-occurring phenomena in the contemporaneous or instantaneous universe. We cannot then infer even an expanding balloon model in a gravitationally unified way. This violates certain principles about the basic continuity and congruence of structure that we hypothesize about the instantaneous universe. Hence, it leads to several observational conclusions:</p> <p>a. Gravitation cannot normally obey the parameters imposed upon energy and matter, and hence occurs in its own dynamic field system that is instantaneous. In other words, we must assume that the contemporaneous universe is being held together in a consistent and coherent way by gravitational forces that are not constrained by normal relativistic space-time contraints and that therefore transcend our observational sphere.</p> <p>b. These forces permit other kinds of motions of the space-time construct than allowed for by the conventional relativistic model and that remain beyond the boundaries of our normal observational sphere.</p> <p>c. With increasing time, the gravitational constant of the universe may indeed be deflating or dynamically fluctuating, and this may account for the apparent expansion of the space-time construct. In other words, the relative densities of the universe may be changing fundamentally through time, but we cannot thereby conclude that there was once a "hot big bang." This fluctuation is in a larger state of greater equilibrium and in greater dynamic perturbation than allowed for by an un-revised cosmological principle. We can only account for the expansion of space-time either by the deflation of the gravitational constant, or by the produce of space-time itself. Both processes appear to be occurring, in a relativistic way.</p> <p>4. The above consideration of the isomorphic character of gravitation within the sphere of observation leads to the question of the original gravitational field of the cosmic egg. If it was infinitely condensed, then it must have contained infinite gravitation, much as a black hole. Black holes that are very large are known to be very stable structures by the same theory that created the big bang. Either the cosmic egg had no gravitational field, or the titanic forces of its explosion were so powerful as to obliterate the structural unity of this field. Gravitation does not seem to be fully accounted for in the big bang model.</p> <p>Besides these basic observational problems with the big bang model, there are some abstract and philosophical reasons of incoherence and inelegance of explanation for not accepting this model as a valid description of cosmogony. To summarize these reasons, I would state the following:</p> <p>1. The big bang implies necessarily a zero-state and a bounded state universe. Furthermore, this original state of the universe appears to have been infinitely condensed. No scientific explanation is given in terms of this model for how this original state arose in the first place. In other words, from the standpoint of science, we must seek some causal and mechanistic explanation that is based upon stochastic process, and we cannot assume some kind of a priori original creation event that cannot be explained scientifically.</p> <p>2. The current local and regional stratification of the universe is defined basically in terms of the original fragmentation of this infinitely dense cosmic egg--the egg exploded, and in the process of its explosion created all the bits and pieces of the current universe. This kind of model appears to defy a naturalistic explanation of stochastic differentiation of phenomena, in which complex constituent entities arise from simpler states and entities. Observational evidence of physical reality suggests an amazing natural stratification of phenomena at all levels, such that smaller entities and properties give rise to more complex derivative states. In other words, in the natural patterning of physical reality, complex states arise derivatively and integrally out of simpler and more basic states, and not vice versa. Once complex states arise, as working systems, they are then subject to decay back to simpler states, as demanded by the laws of thermodynamics. Therefore, we must explain first the rise of a complex cosmic egg in the first place, before we then seek to explain its subsequent decay. This type of expected explanation is not forthcoming from a big bang model.</p> <p>3. If we can assume normal creation pathways for stars and planetary systems that were independent of the big bang event, such as the evolutionary development of new stars and new galaxies, and if we can coherently extend these kinds of pathways in a manner that obeys the laws of conservation of energy and mass, and that are consistent with our observational evidence, to include a wider range of other inferable phenomena, then there is no reason to assume more exotic origination phenomena occurring to account for these same kinds of systems.</p> <p>It is for these kinds of reasons, as well as for philosophically intuitive reasons of the questions of infinity and finite-states, that I have rejected the big bang model as a sufficient explanation for the dynamics involved in the universe. We must therefore seek a more sophisticated cosmological model.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Relativistic theory is essentially correct as a description of the geometrical effect of gravitation upon the space-time construct. It does not fully explain, I believe, exactly what gravitation or the space-time construct really are or may be. It only describes in very elegant mathematical terms the normal relationships occurring within such a system. I believe that we cannot arrive at a realistic and sufficient cosmology, unless and until we have arrived at a unified field theory that serves to explain all physical phenomena in a consistent and coherent way. I believe a geometrodynamic theory of multiply interconnected space approaches such unification, but so far it lacks the complete mathematical elegance expected of a finished field theory. Furthermore, it must be reconciled fully, I believe, with quantum theory. I do not presume in this work to offer a unified field theory, but only to suggest its possibility.</p> <p>I would only suggest, as one conclusion from this work, that there is some kind of relationship occurring between electromagnetism and gravitation that may not be fully understood. We can speak possibly of a conservation of charge in a manner that we can refer to a conservation of mass in any transaction of energy. For instance, two gravitating bodies will seek what I refer to as relative gravitational unification such that there is no gravitational disequilibrium between two different mass objects. This is a property inherent to and definitive of gravitational attraction. Relative gravitational equilibrium can be understood as similar or homologous to charge balance. Two separate mass objects in gravitational relation to one another behave as if two oppositely charged particles, such that opposites attract. Gravitational attraction is in this sense homologous to magnetic attraction of oppositely charged particles. It can be presumed that field lines exist between two mass objects, or, comparatively, two oppositely charged particles such that there is a mutual binding force occurring between them. In other words, they come to constitute a unified field system, one that is often described by unification or alternatively by spin bound or rotationally polarized states. It is a paradox, that though electromagnetic force is many times more powerful than gravitational force, electromagnetic force really only expresses itself in very small constituent entities, in terms of electrons and protons, while gravitational force appears to be cumulatively expressible in very large mass bound objects. We might speculate that the magnetic field in which electromagnetic energy is expressed is essentially equivalent to the spime field in which gravitational energy gains expression, albeit the former occurs in much more concentrated states while that latter occurs in much more distributed and diffuse states. We might speculate furthermore, that the concentration of this electrostatic energy could only arise and gain expression as the result of magnetic polarization of the constituent entities.</p> <p>Another way of conceiving this is to say something like this: the charge interaction of energy in a magnetic field is equivalent to the mass interaction of matter in a gravitational field, the difference being a matter of relative density distribution and binding polarization. The former form of force field appears to occur in concentrated but short-range patterns, while the latter appears to occur in distributed but long-distance patterns. It is as if electrostatic force gives up distributional potential for greater power, while gravitational force yields power for greater distributional potential.</p> <p>Understanding the relationship between charge and mass appears to me to hinge upon understanding theoretically the similarities between charge imbalance, on the one hand, and gravitational disequilibrium between mass-objects, on the other. The most straightforward explanation of gravitational disequilibrium I can offer is that of a basic perturbation or interference of intrinsic spime-gravitational field lines occurring between two distant objects within mutual gravitational fields. If the spime induction model is correct, this can only be explainable in terms of the mutual destruction of the space-time manifold between the two mass-objects until one of two possibilities occur. Either there occurs gravitational unification of the two mass-objects as a single gravitational object, which would be the equivalent of the neutralization of charge, or directional motion occurs in the system in such a way as to offset the disequilibrium in a consistent and continuous way. Angular spin cannot by itself defeat the gravitational disequilibrium between two mass objects, though mutual gravitational attraction usually results in such rotational spin, and creates both precession and periodic oblation. Such spin can only result in an object defeating its own gravitational field, i.e., through centrifugal force offsetting gravitational force. Only directional motion, which is the equivalent of energy of momentum, can offset and counteract the effects of mutual gravitational disequilibrium such that the space-time manifold between the two mass-objects will not become destroyed. Such velocity must be sufficient to create an angular momentum that is equivalent to the mutual attractive force occurring between the two mass objects in order to balance or offset that mutual attraction.</p> <p>The mutual destruction of the space-time manifold between two or more mass objects bound gravitationally can be understood as the mutual perturbation of the normally occurring spime-field by means of spime induction. A way of looking at this phenomenon is to suggest that the normal structure of space-time as it occurs becomes destroyed or imbalanced between the two objects, by means of the mutual gravitational field lines created in a similar manner that magnetic field lines will occur between two oppositely charged particles. The gravitational field between any two mass objects will collapse in the same manner, with the same results of state-path trajectories, regardless of the relative mass differences of the two objects. A marble will enter into the earth's gravitational field and achieve unification with the earth in the same manner, with the same state-path trajectory and acceleration, as a massive meteorite. The difference of course, will be the achieved momentum of the differently sized objects upon impact. The gravitational system of a galaxy has precisely the same structural patterning as that of the earth and the moon or as the gravity system occurs in this solar system. The difference is that of scale and relative magnitude of the forces involved.</p> <p>This kind of model suggests that gravitational field lines established between two mass objects become destructive through mutual interference, which leads to the destruction of the space-time matrix between them. We can speculate that all mass differentiated objects seek gravitational unification of some relative form, such that there will occur stable field lines between the objects that are nondestructive.</p> <p>This leads to the speculation that the consistency and isotropic uniformity of pattern in the universe is to be expected in equivalent types of gravitational systems. Upon larger scales and magnitudes of gravitational attraction, we expect gravitational distribution, stratification and relative unification to occur over vaster and vaster distances. If we have not observed yet a larger scale stratification of the universe, in accordance to the cosmological principle, it does not necessarily mean that such a larger form of gravitational system does not occur. It may be so vast as to encompass our achieved observational sphere by many orders.</p> <p>If the dynamic state cosmological model is correct, it is to be expected that with increasing depth of space-time of our observational sphere, there should be overall less higher order stratification of phenomenal event patterning and gravitational structure occurring.</p> <p>The property of charge, like the property of mass, appears to be very fundamental to a description of physical reality. We know both to be equivalent to energy, and we know the latter property to be relative to gravitation in much the same way as charge is relative to the electromagnetic field it occurs within. We understand charge as a force in terms of imbalance of charge differentials as a result of electromagnetic polarization. The key in relating this to mass imbalance of gravitational differentials is to understand in a homologous way how gravitational disequilibrium may occur between two mass-objects. We understand that motion may counteract gravitational attraction, and motion is equivalent to the inertia of energy. Indeed, energy intermediates between all mass-gravitational interactions. If we wish to counter the gravitational pull of the earth to launch a spaceship beyond its grasp, we must apply a certain amount of energy in a consistent and directive manner. If the same ship reenters the gravitational field of the earth, it falls like a meteorite until it disintegrates into energy upon impact.</p> <p>I will hypothesize that mass displacement within a gravitational field requires energy applied in some form of directive pressure. Such displacement, in whatever form it occurs, is equivalent to acceleration. In this sense, uniformity of motion is equivalent to relative rest. Such mass displacement creates a relative gravitational imbalance, which can be described as the energy of resistance to such displacement, in a way homologous to how charge imbalance results from the displacement of electrons. Charge balance is equivalent to gravitational unification of mass--both represent a form of relative rest or equilibrium and both are related to a phenomenon that I call spin synchronization. In the case of charge polarization, a balanced magnetic field is created. In the case of mass unification, a balanced gravitational field is created--both fields are equivalent in the same space-time construct.</p> <p>Another way of saying this is to put forth that charge is nothing but a special form of mass that is spatially unbound, creating a electromagnetic field and giving rise to energy. We might say that electromagnetism is a charged gravitational field. It is to be expected that an electromagnetic field must have very similar state characteristics as a spime-gravitational field. In a sense, on a basic level, they are mechanically the same except for differences of mass and charge binding. Electromagnetic fields are relatively independent of mass, and gravitational fields are relatively independent of charge. In a sense, mass can be thought of as the positive complement of charge and both have a complement of negative spime energy.</p> <p>This may be explained if we can demonstrate the three-way mutual equivalence of space-time (or spime) to energy and mass, as in the following diagram:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR2.ht1.gif" width="529" height="222"></p> <p> </p> <p>We can only understand the interrelationship between electromagnetism and gravitation if we understand the substantive and mechanical value of the missing third term, or of spime, as constitutive of the space-time construct. The space-time construct of classical general relativity is basically a self-consistent model. It possesses relativistic properties and has a geometric description or geodesic curvature, but it is nothing more or less than uniform emptiness defined in terms of, and in turn defining, the shape of the things it contains, albeit mass and energy.</p> <p>I propose that both gravitation and electromagnetism as differential forms of energy arise from the same source in the substance of the space-time construct, such that their positive expression is always in relation to a differential imbalance with a negative complement that their non-reciprocal occurrence produces. Ultimately, both forms of energy arise from the same kind of negative "mass-energy" or spime gravitation contained in the spime matrix, as a result of the internalization or non-reciprocal binding of this matrix into internally unitary or particularistic structures. In its normally occurring form, the spime matrix is minimally integrated by means of field lines that arise as the result of spin synchronization of its constituent elements. This negative energy is naturally reciprocal and self-neutralizing or self-canceling. We only experience and can infer its existence indirectly by means of the non-reciprocal effects of its interaction with matter and energy.</p> <p>This must be seen as a complex system of interaction in which there is both essential equivalence and conservation. Electromagnetism and electromagnetic radiation arise as the result of the charge dissociation or polarization of basic nucleonic mass objects--in other words, it arises as a result of the creation of a proton-electron pair. The possibility of this polarization occurs in the first place because mass itself is constituted by energy that is in a spatially bound state, and charge polarization is an intrinsic property of energy. To go one step further, gravitational displacement and gravitational radiation arise as the result of mass displacement of the same basic nucleonic mass-objects, and in turn result in electromagnetic displacement as well. This is possible because mass objects itself are constituted by gravitational spime, and mass displacement is an intrinsic property of spime.</p> <p>We can further speculate that electromagnetic energy arises spontaneously and exists in reciprocal form in the normal spime matrix, in an equivalent way that mass-gravitational energy arises spontaneously and exists in a similar reciprocal form. In fact, they are differential expressions of the same negative or complementary-state mass-energy.</p> <p>Most of the alternative cosmology built within this work is based upon this theory and its systematic extension to account for an understanding of the basic physical structure of reality at all levels as this is found to naturally occur. Much of this theory depends upon our understanding of electromagnetic energy and its patterns of propagation through space-time. In general, we have adopted a very linear model of this pattern, though this would seem to violate an essential property of reality, that of its inherent non-linearity. Light cannot be a perfectly determined system. Indeed, thermodynamics, the essence of light, posits that there can be no perpetual motion machines of any type, and yet we attempt to make light into a kind of perpetual motion system.</p> <hr> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Chapter III</p> </font><font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Zero & Non-Zero State Models</p> </font><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Light Propagation & Unified Fields</p> </font> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p><b><font size="6">W</font></b>e have a basic choice in our conceptualization of the total universe. We can decide that it is infinite or that it is somehow finite in its total structure. It leads to a basic antinomial paradox about our ability to know reality in the largest and smallest senses possible.</p> <p>On some level, most physicist's in the world today have accepted a "blind model" of the universe that is at least implicitly zero-state and finite in some way or another. The zero-state model is based upon the relativistic singularity principle that gravitational collapse of a stellar system above a certain mass will result in collapse beyond the Schwarzschild radius within which energy can no longer be released. The collapse continues to singularity, which is construed as an infinitely smooth condition of infinite density.</p> <p>Gravitational collapse is the final end phase of the death of a star, in which it suddenly implodes to many times smaller and denser than its normal steady-state size. It is a mechanism considered more efficient in energy conversion that thermonuclear radiation, which in normal stars cannot be greater than .9% of the rest mass. Relativistic considerations govern whether a collapsing death star will become a black hole or result in some other explosive phenomena such as a supernovae or a galactic explosion. The sudden collapse to a smaller size by many orders of magnitude will release kinetic energy and cosmic particles, the fraction of which is approximated by the following formula:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">(Energy Released)/(Initial Mass) ≈ 1 - (1 - [(M/M¤)(3.0km/R)]<sup>1/2</p> </sup> <p ALIGN="CENTER">≈ (M/M¤)(1.5km/R)</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Where M/M¤ is the final mass of the body in units of solar masses, and R is its final radius. If the final radius is near 3.0 (M/M¤) then almost 100% of the mass of the object may be released as energy.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Complex models for gravitational collapse of supernovae have been developed which have been later demonstrated by observational evidence to be correct, and led to the discovery of neutron stars or "pulsars." Collapse of a dead star begins at time t = 0 by an endothermic nuclear explosion which removes pressure-sustaining electrons. At t = 1.863 seconds, the core 50% of the star is collapsing at half light-speed, and the central core has reached a nuclear density of about 10<sup>14</sup>g/cm<sup>3</sup>. Repulsive nuclear forces create tremendous internal pressures that stall further collapse and creates a shock wave through the core, in which the kinetic energy of collapse is converted to heat which is then transformed into neutrinos by means of temperature-sensitive elementary-particle reactions. These neutrinos diffuse to the secondary envelope that is still collapsing, depositing much of the star's kinetic energy of collapse and setting up a secondary shock wave of the exploding envelope. This shock wave blows away near light speed from the core at billions of degrees in temperature, converting .01% of the envelope to cosmic rays.</p> <p>General relativistic constraints pose limits to the possibility of gravitational collapse. Early work by Oppenheimer and later by S. Chandrasekhar showed that any spherical star collapsing to a radius less than the Schwarzschild radius, given by the formula below, can no longer release thermodynamic energy to the outside.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">R<sub>Sch</sub> = 3.0(M/M¤) km</p> <p>Gravitational energy of such an object would be so great as to result in continuing collapse to infinite density. Any star larger than 1.5 solar masses, with a large uncertainty factor, must eventually reduce its mass below this value or else collapse into a black hole.</p> <p>Later work by Penrose and Stephen Hawking demonstrated that time would come to a stop in the black hole as it approached infinite density of singularity. They developed models of spherically non-symmetrical objects within the Schwarzschild radius that lead to a wide variety of alternative forms, which may not entail infinite density but may entail infinitely strong and disruptive gravitational forces.</p> <p>The singularity of an infinitely dense collapsing star is seen as a non-entropic phenomenon and as a breakdown of general relativistic theory. Later work demonstrated that quantum gravitational effects not accounted for by relativistic theory could arise at densities above 10<sup>90</sup>g/cm<sup>3</sup> and forestall singularity. Entropic effects can therefore be predicted for black holes, and Hawking demonstrated the possibilities for black holes radiating energy, with smaller black holes emitting the strongest radiation.</p> <p>Collapse into singularity creates an extreme gravitational curvature of space-time. Radiation emitted from the surface of the collapsing object would demonstrate infinite Einstein red shift, slowing down all harmonic periodic processes within the gravitational field, such that the periodic intervals would increase infinitely. As a star collapses, it appears never to reach beyond the Shwarzschild radius, but to collapse infinitely slowly and the red shift of light becomes greater and greater. Eventually, the star appears as a dark orb hovering over the Shwarzschild radius. The surface of infinite red shift, or ergosphere, would lie outside the horizon except at the poles where there are negative energy particle trajectories. If the rotation of a black hole slowed down, even more than rest-mass energies may be recovered from these negative energy trajectories.</p> <p>Relativistic solutions for black holes are completely stable asymptoptically, and only increase in size with the induction of new matter. Black holes may radiate, but this radiation would be insignificant compared to the gain of adsorption of radiation from space.</p> <p>A black hole is therefore defined as an endpoint of gravitational collapse that leaves only a center of gravitational attraction after the disappearance of collapsing matter. A star must be greater than three solar masses to create a black hole. The resulting black hole is independent of its mass properties and can be described by its spin and mass. The event horizon forms a surface that completely encloses the collapsed matter in an ideal one-way membrane. The Schwarzschild solution for a non-spinning star was derived from Einstein's general field equations, and later the Kerr solutions applied to spinning black holes. Solutions for charged black holes have also been demonstrated. Uniqueness theorems show that Kerr black holes probably would exist that can be described completely by mass, spin and charge. Radiation explosions would remove distortions to any black hole, by induction of matter. Though the initial collapse is complex, the final system, the Kerr black hole, is relatively simple and independent of the processes of collapse.</p> <p>An alternative end point of stellar collapse than a black hole is defined as a white dwarf, which is held together and prevented from further gravitational collapse by atomic forces. White Dwarves have a limiting factor of a mass of 1.2 solar masses, known as the Chandrasekhar limit.</p> <p>Another alternative endpoint of stellar collapse is the neutron star that is held together by nucleonic forces that prevent further gravitational collapse. The limit of neutron stars is estimated between 1 and 3 solar masses. Therefore, if a star greater than 3 solar masses does not somehow eject a significant amount of matter during collapse, it is bound to become a black hole. Many black holes are conjectured to exist because many stars greater than 3 solar masses form more quickly, though these objects may only be observed by means of their gravitational influence upon other objects. A black hole formed by 5 solar masses is conjectured to have a radius of 20 km, which is comparable to the size expected for neutron stars of less mass. It is expected to achieve similar densities as neutron stars or of atomic nuclei. Black holes in the center of galaxies may have masses in excess of a million or even a hundred million solar masses, formed either from very massive stars or the coalescence of smaller black holes, and derived from a density comparable to terrestrial densities.</p> <p>The singularity derived from black hole solutions have been applied in reverse fashion to big-bang models of cosmic evolution, and hence, to cosmic singularity at which point time comes to a stop.</p> <p>My model of the dynamic state universe construes the infinite event horizon constituted by the relativistic principle of singularity to be explainable in several alternative ways.</p> <p>1. Gravitational collapse beyond the Schwarzschild radius leads to almost complete conversion of mass to gravitational radiation, and this escapes the black hole in profuse and continuous amounts.</p> <p>2. Gravitational collapse results in the formation of "supermass" which is a unique super dense matrix of spime. This supermass is an energy sinkhole that gravitationally traps all radiant energy and converts this energy to pure gravitational radiation, thus rendering a typical black hole gravitationally stable.</p> <p>3. If singularity exists, it exists in the gravitational core of a black hole as a single homogeneous point, and this core would represent a kind of gravitational porthole through the reality sphere into a symmetrical state universe.</p> <p>4. The long-term stability of a black hole might be determined by its ability to continuously take in new mass to replace what is being lost in its tremendous conversion process. It leads to a picture of a "black object" that would feed upon itself, squeezing itself to ever-greater densities, until gravitation itself would cease and implode. At such a point, it is predicted that the remaining residual mass of the black hole would either "blink" out completely, to become a "white source" in a symmetrical state universe, or else explode in a disintegration event that released a tremendous amount of gravitational energy. It is possible that both events occur simultaneously, albeit in different temporal dimensions.</p> <p>According to my spime mechanical model, once a star would have been formed as a coherent gravitational system, it would intrinsically create new mass in ever denser concentrations of heavier isotopes. This process is very gradual and steady at first, as most of the mass created would in fact be blown off or lost to space. A spime replacement model must account for the conservation of both mass and energy in such systems. That these systems are very stable over a very long period of time, in spite of their dynamic forces, provides evidence in support of this theory.</p> <p>We can see that stars grow denser and thicker in time, passing through several successive stages, culminating in a degenerate star event. This development cycle appears to occur mostly at the core of such systems, and is sustained throughout the life of a star system.</p> <p>Such gravitational systems are by definition size-dependent. Their relative size in general will determine their state-path trajectory, unless external factors or forces come into play. Once such a system becomes gravitationally well defined, this system remains coherent in a stable way. Spime induction alone will not lead to a significant increase in the size of the system. It becomes unlikely that such a system will accrete enough extraneous matter to achieve a significant size above its original scale. It suggests that if spime fusion occurs in the cores of stars, then not only will tremendous amounts of gravitational and nuclear and thermionic radiation be released, but new mass will be created. But this new mass must take the form of nucleonic ionic plasma that is very unstable, and that pulses as waves through the star body. In general, over time, this ionic plasma will tend to fuse in the star as the internal temperature-pressure of the star core rises. Nuclear fusion will be the general outcome of this, binding ions into more stable forms that drift away from the core and solidify in a matrix about the core.</p> <p>In time, this internal layer of heavier nuclear mass about the core will create a change in the basic structure of the star system as it shifts from being a predominantly hydrogen active to a heavier isotopic system. The formation of the matrix about the core will generate a shift in pressure-temperature balance of the system, which will result in the sudden expansion of the system as a red giant until most of excess hydrogen of the outer layers is dissipated. The star will then recollapse gravitationally about the new semi-core defined by heavier nuclei, and will steadily increase in temperatures as the core undergoes higher order fusion reactions.</p> <p>In understanding the lifecycle of such a system, we might refer to a shifting balance of internal forces that lead to a gradual internal stratification of the core in terms of heavier atomic nuclei. Such systems are gravitationally constrained, such that they do not change in overall balance. If they increase gravitationally as a result of growing densities of the core, this is offset by the shrinking size of the system as a whole. From this, we may say that systems to remain in some kind of complex gravitational equilibrium from the beginning to the end of their lifecycle.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>Most have adopted the cosmology of the hot big bang, which is considered to be homologous to the model of gravitational collapse, and I believe this is primarily because this model is already received as a relativistic paradigm in a closed community of scientists. Questions of what created the cosmic egg, or what came before, or what existed beyond, remain unasked and unanswerable in such a model. Many other issues are conveniently sidestepped.</p> <p>I have adopted a contraposed model of the "cold fusion" evolution of the growing dynamic state universe that has resulted in the long run in the increasing stockpiling of matters and energies at greater and greater densities of stable but non-reciprocal states. The dynamic state universe is held to be one that was originally much as a zero-state universe would have looked like--not infinitely dense, but infinitely rarefied and homogeneous. It would have acquired its current disposition and mass distribution by incremental steps and degrees.</p> <p>Einstein's general theory of relativity has predicted a basic curvature of space-time, and most if not all of his predictions have been empirically born out to be true. Many see this concept of curvature as evidence of a closed universe, a kind of sphere that circles upon itself in every direction. Still, such a model begs some fundamental questions. It seems counterintuitive that if there is matter here, in this universe, but there cannot be some other form of matter somewhere, or sometime else, in some other universe. Not only do we know if the value of space-time curvature is positive or negative, but what strikes me most, is whether it is also omni-directionally oriented rather than uniform.</p> <p>I have hypothesized a revised spime mechanical model that sees most space-time as in a sense "negative space." The bulk of space-time, perhaps more than 99% of the universe itself, occurs in the intergalactic regions. I hypothesize that the field lines occurring in this space-time are in a sense completely concentric upon themselves, and there is negative gravitational repulsion that may have the effect of disintegrating matter and energy that passes through it. Still, in spite of this purported structure, light travels through it with the appearance to our eyes as relatively unimpeded. If curvature occurs, it appears to occur in fairly uniform rates, but it does not appear to be so large a value in most cases as to close light upon itself in some larger sphere. I believe it can be logically demonstrated that all such curvature of light is omnidirectionally random, hence uniform, and that it is impossible for such light, as its own large scale thermodynamic system, not to be fundamentally open and not self-enclosing.</p> <p>One of the reasons for this is, I believe, that light does not always bend in the same uniform direction over the long run of its unimpeded pathway across the universe. In the long run, it is highly unlikely that its curvature will not be self-cancelling. Some light may achieve a closed loop type of trajectory, but this loop would in space-time describe not a circle, but a kind of oscillating loop. We get a kind of spirographic pattern translated through a temporal vector like a coiled spring or helix.</p> <p>The other reason, I believe, based upon my spime-mechanical model, that in spite of the constant value of light diffusion as a function of its radius from its origin, most light, say more than 99%, actually becomes trapped and "filtered" on its long-term pathway. It is eventually to be returned to the reservoir of space-time itself. There is always some residuum of light that remains, perhaps always less than 1% of the total, and there is always some residuum of this remaining light, that is relatively linear and nearly perfectly coherent. This light is always at the very center point of every photographic plate we may wash from our light collecting instruments. And amazingly, it is this very small percentage of light that is the most coherent, that seems almost perfectly coherent as if it were created yesterday and not 16 billion years ago.</p> <p>It is predicted that with increasing depth of focus of our instruments, there will be an increasing background "noise" that will be fundamentally indiscriminant. The noise level and the coherence level of our light will exist in an inverse relationship that will be nonlinear and exponential over distance/time. Like our understanding of space-time itself, to which it is critically related, we can hypothesize a basic relationship in the structure of light between its coherence (F) and its interference (V):</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">F (V) = 1</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>We might push this notion further, and understand that it has certain important relativistic considerations governing it. It is directly related to information theory and the notion of channel capacity and to systems theory and the notion of entropy.</p> <p>We may say something fundamental about light, at whatever wavelength we wish to consider. Though it comes in particularistic quantum units known as photons, it is inherently non-particularistic in its measurement or realization, by the superposition principle. What light we see is always of non-specific quanta, or some minimal set of quantum units in combination. We deal with sets of light units that have some degree of cardinality of coherence associated with that set. Individual units or quanta of light may not obey the set, may be removed or even replaced within the set, but it is the coherence of the set as a whole with which we are concerned.</p> <p>Another way of saying this, is that whatever we see, whenever we see it, is information that is embedded in the patterning of light as a whole set of quanta, rather than the cumulative effect of individual quanta. Within the framework of the spectral continuum we are observing, we are viewing the interaction of the units of light with one another as a light system.</p> <p>The paradox of light emitted from very distant sources that are considered, for all intents and purposes, practically spherical and omni-directional in radiation, though we know light to be composed of quanta that are like individual packages of energy, from which we can make electrons and their complements. If we stand a particular distance away from the surface of the source, we can calculate fairly accurately the average intensity of light we are receiving if we know the average light intensity at the surface. We can even determine approximately our distance from the source based upon our measurements of its intensity if we know its source intensity. And this intensity measure is for all intents and purposes a "natural average" barring any kind of fluctuation and random distribution of individual photons in the field we are observing.</p> <p>The paradox of light, and I believe this is a paradox that was neglected in the relativistic understanding of the curvature of light in space, is that though it occurs as quanta in some finite sense. No matter how far we stand from its source, we receive it as a bundle of quanta in some distributed fashion that creates a pattern that is wave-like and integrated. This wave-like pattern appears continuous, though it is effectively composed of discontinuous entities. Thus, if we are to talk about curvature of light, we need to consider the consequences of this curvature and for this curvature, not for a straight and narrow beam but for a continuous wave front.</p> <p>The reason for this can be found in Heisenbergian uncertainty and Einstein-Bose statistics. If a quantum can be found in equal probability in any number of alternate positions at one time, it in a sense occurs potentially in all positions simultaneously, as a non-discrete continuum. I will call this the "spime unification" of the energy field. In essence, in the ethereal medium of spime that I hypothesize as being in a sense negative space, this is exactly what happens to light--light becomes unified as a coherent wave across its possible states. Any single, individual quanta emitted alone from some electron in deep space may become lost in the grand lottery lattice of the universe, never reaching its originally intended destination. But any group of quantum emitted in some kind of harmonious manner will always reach their intended destination in some minimally coherent way.</p> <p>In fact, it would be impossible to "see" any discrete quantum of light that is not a part of a larger natural light system.</p> <p>If we observe from very distant sources, it follows that the individual behavior of quantum units is of no concern. It is the behavior of the light as a coherent system that we are concerned. It is as a stream flowing down a mountainside. We see it as a stream, and we do not think about the individual water-molecules that compose the water of the stream. The water of the stream exerts a pressure and has a presence that is greater than the mere sum of the individual molecules composing that water.</p> <p>We might say something radical like the following:</p> <p>1. In the background noise of the universe, any sample is always an almost random sample, such that its constituent sample points, or quanta, may come from practically any point in the universe.</p> <p>We might also hypothesize the opposite:</p> <p>2. In any sample of light we collect, no matter how seemingly noisy or devoid of intensity, there is always some complex but minimal sense of order or pattern to be found in the collection.</p> <p>Depending on our optical lens or light collecting system, we can say that for any rounded light-collecting plate of any given size, there will be a normal kind of distribution pattern in which there is some center of focus, a periphery and some intermediate pattern of interference. This would be for any sample of any region that is regarded as approximately random, even the darkest regions of space. We might perhaps have to wait a very long time of uninterrupted or else periodic collection, but eventually some diffuse light pattern should emerge.</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR3.ht2.gif" width="500" height="241"></p> <p> </p> <p>The actual shape and size of the zones and the distribution of light patterning within them might vary depending upon our instruments and what we perceive. But the point is to emphasize that we are looking at a distribution of light that is in some minimal sense coherent and that has some underlying structural order about it. It is in other words an integrated system of light, rather than a discrete set of sample points. We have this sense of light coherence better with a holographic plate than with a normal photograph, but even a conventional photography must be understood in this way.</p> <p>We might put the argument in another way that might be nontrivial. If we cannot at any one moment identify the exact position of an electron without sacrificing knowledge about some other property of that entity, then we can see the entire field or shell of the electron's alternative state-trajectories as a minimally integrated field that constitutes its own system and that confers on the whole the full set of properties that its particularistic description or instantiation must lack.</p> <p>This is perhaps obvious and perhaps somewhat counterintuitive at the same time. In most optical observations of the universe, the optical field is never perfectly uniform. Several stars may exist in different regions of the plate, each contributing some kind of light information to the plate in a complex way.</p> <p>We know that we cannot collect our best information from any particular distant system, unless we can focus as closely as possible dead-center upon that system from our vantage point, or else we have some means of uniformly collecting information across the entire field in an equivalent manner.</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR3.ht3.gif" width="500" height="241"></p> <p> </p> <p>In such a plate, which is quite common, we might find multiple-points of possible coherence in the field, each of which may be in fact more coherent than the central focal region. We would conclude that we are focusing on nothing but noise. Most of the time, this is how it looks, and we can infer that the distribution of light upon the plate is not random but complexly ordered, as it usually is. To learn more about what we are seeing, we would want to focus upon each of the points of coherence in turn and to try to analyze that focal region as much as possible. But even in an inherently "unfocused" picture as above, we must see that there is meaningful information in the overall distribution of light upon the plate.</p> <p>Really, whenever we look out at the stars, whether with our naked eyes or the most powerful instruments we have, this is what we are really ever able to see. From this one picture alone, repeated on a vast number of occasions, we must piece together a coherent picture of the cosmos, from which we must derive a coherent model of cosmology.</p> <p>Light that comes from a distant source must be increasingly intense, given our limited light collecting capacities. Less intense light sources from too far away will remain essentially invisible to our light collecting capability. There is a paradox that with increasing distance there is an inherent increasing incapacity to discriminate finely between multiple sources that are near to one another, or that appear next to one another from our field of view even if they are themselves separated by vast distances. In other words, as we get deeper and deeper with our limited capacities, our focal plane of resolution comes to embrace larger and larger areas of depth and field of focus simultaneously. There is a sense, in such cases, that the natural light system we are receiving is inherently fused or unified, such that we cannot tell if the light we are getting comes from one or the other source. In fact, the light we receive is probably deriving from both sources fundamentally. This is very similar to the superposition principle of quantum relativity, and it ultimately derives from the same set of reasons.</p> <p>Light is related to gravitational radiation. It is very similar to gravitational radiation. In fact, if we could build an optical instrument capable of seeing gravitation, it might resemble light in its patterning. Again, if we could devise such an instrument, we would have created the basis for an entirely new way of seeing the universe, and it would provide us with a great deal of insight into its structure.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>There may be a patterning in this background noise, and this is worthwhile studying as well for a variety of related and derivative reasons. Analysis of noise in light spectrums would constitute an entire class of experiments themselves that would be important to our understanding of the universe.</p> <p>The only way we are going to be able to develop a more realistic cosmological model of the universe is if we can unlock the secrets and patterns of light itself. I propose a body of experiments aimed at better understanding the pathways and properties of light, especially as this is received from remote corners of our observational sphere of the universe. The purpose of this current digression is not to elaborate in detail these kinds of experiments or their implications, but only to suggest their plausibility and probability in helping us to construct and test our theoretical models of the universe.</p> <p>The relativistic consideration of light that sees it as a curving line that arcs through space-time, is a relativistically determined point-conception that does not take into account the field-mechanics of light as always a system of sample-points that occur invariably in an minimally integrated distributional field. We cannot say that the relativistic properties describing the behavior of any particular photonic component of the field necessarily describes the behavior of the field as a whole. I believe it is more accurate to say that such descriptions always describe some percentage value of the whole field, and the entire field as a whole always remains minimally undescribable as an entropic and non-linear system.</p> <p>Thus, if we describe the theoretical "tunneling" effects of a photon of light in the spime matrix, we cannot see this as a discretely isolatable phenomenon. This tunneling effect that is hypothetically characteristic of light becomes translated into a wave-field effect in some manner. I believe this is accomplished by the field-lines that always are intrinsic to the effect of such tunneling and that serve to unite the field in an instantaneous way.</p> <p>Going back to the model of spime that exists as a temporal entity with a certain graininess, its inherent field lines that stretch and overlap omni-directionally to integrate all of space-time in some minimal way. These same field lines must be "potentiated" with the potentiation of the tunnels that light effects, and these field lines serve to integrate light that comes in "bundles" into a coherent field.</p> <p>If we interpret this phenomenon from the standpoint of Heisenbergian uncertainty, we can say that as the field of diffusion from a given light source increases, the energetic potentiality of a photon that may be realized anywhere within this field decreases proportionately in a non-Euclidean way. A photon must yield a percentage of its energy to maintain the coherence of the field it is in. The larger the field, the greater the amount of energy it must yield to maintain it. As a point, it becomes increasingly indiscrete, though it always remains minimally so. We can venture a formula related to the previous set of formulas dealing with the point particularity of a photon (P) and its range positionality within a given field (R), such that for any given instance there is always a relationship:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">P(R) = 1</p> <p>In trying to understand this, we must speculate that light in a vacuum will at least in theory always travel at a constant velocity that is well known. Thus, given such a constant speed, if the same photon must distribute itself at any particular instant in its pathway over a wider field, it must yield its potential energy for its expression at any particular point in that field at that instant, such that its speed remains constant. For a very broad field at a very far distance, if we wish to identify or locate a particular exact photon, we would require of that photon an almost infinite amount of energy.</p> <p>It is possible to see in this a size-proportionate phenomenon relating to instantaneously noneuclidean observational spheres, such that as a photon is potentially distributed over a larger area, that photon must corresponding shrink in size. For it to remain its original size, it must increase its energy in inverse proportion. In considering this hypothetical kind of relativistic phenomenon, we can imagine the shrinking or expansion of interval measures of space and time in such a way, as the relative intrinsic shrinking or expansion of the light of the system. As an entity approaches the speed of light, it in effect, to remain coherent as an entity, must appear to shrink in its size indefinitely to the vanishing point. We would only see this process as a blurring and obscuring of focus at any one instant, to the point that the object in motion would disappear from view and become essentially invisible to us. If an object were traveling the speed of light, it would appear to vanish, and would in a sense grow to a scale infinitely large compared to some observer at rest. The paradox is that any observer stationed upon the object, would not see its own point of origin, or would appear never to leave its point of origin, as it would travel the same speed as the light that left the origination point at the same time, and arrive at the destination at the same time. But the rest of the surrounding frame of reference would in a since blink out for the duration of the travel, or else possibly blur into obscurity.</p> <p>To think about the complex motions possible in the universe, it is possible that we and our immediate system are traveling at or close to the speed of light in some direction, without our even realizing it. I doubt this is the case--it has not yet been noticed in our coordinates among the stars. But the point is that there is no reason to assume that the internal coherence of the system cannot be maintained at or approximately close to light speed. Though it would require an incredible amount of energy to reach this speed, once it is attained in normal space-time, it should maintain itself as a relativistic system in coordination to the space-time manifold.</p> <p>How is it that objects in the space-time manifold appear to maintain their momentum of energy indefinitely if it is in fact an ethereal spime medium of matrix? We can understand this in terms of the universal self-cancellation of mass in space and the non-thermodynamic properties of normal spime. Negative energy always balances positive energy so that there is no net loss. Inertia and entropy can be understood as indirect expressions of negative energy. Any object would obtain a relative condition of weightlessness whatever its absolute mass. This is just the reverse effect of what happens in gravitational attraction of bodies in a uniform gravitational field. Objects fall to earth at the same rates in the same field regardless of their size or weight. The space-time manifold is moving with the objects, and this is resulting in its falling, at least according to our theory. Hence, if we accelerate an object in apparently empty space, in a sense we are really accelerating the spime matrix in which this object is embedded such that it flows in the direction and speed that the object is moving. Any object in spime leaves a shell that is like a ripple or bump in the matrix, even if it is at rest. To cause this object to move in some direction is to change the relative size of this surrounding shell or bump, temporarily, in the direction of acceleration. Once this acceleration is stopped the shell or bump returns to its normal shape surrounding the object. This entire shell is being translated uniformly through the universe, with the mass-object, which always has slight gravitational effects, embedded in its center.</p> <p>We can see from this standpoint that gravitation serves to unite an object not only with itself, but also with the surrounding spime matrix, and with the surrounding universe. Gravitational unification is more than just internal mass unification--it is unification of the object with the entire system of the universe. We can say that the system, as a gravitational system, is translated uniformly and instantaneously through space-time in the direction of its momentum, as a unified system. It is like light that translates as a system. In a sense, the principle of the field lines holds. The momentum of the system is the relative energy of its acceleration or deceleration. In empty space, this energy is relative to the universe itself.</p> <p>The universe holds itself together instantaneously. We must ask how it accomplishes this. The universe cannot be conceptualized otherwise as a coherent system or a theoretical construct. An instantaneous-state universe restores a sense of absolute spatial structure of the universe though this cannot be relativistically realized, such that there are absolute Euclidean geometries between co-occurring entities and events. Light travels a pathway that is fundamentally longer than this absolute distance--the further light travels, the greater this difference between Euclidean and relativistic distances. This difference grows non-linearly as a function of increasing distance, as a Pythagorean variable. We can say that the instantaneous-state universe is actually smaller in proportion to the observational sphere that encompasses this universe. By knowing the speed of light, and the Hubble constant, we can estimate absolute distances between very distant objects in the instantaneous state universe, assuming that objects retain their positions relative to one another, which they do not appear to do in reality.</p> <p>This suggests a startling revelation about the fundamental structure of reality. In my unrevised version of the dynamic-state universe, I proposed that time was a basic structural component, and that in a sense, change was a constant, or at least a continuous, universal variable. I do not think this is entirely a correct presupposition to make. Time appears to me to be intrinsically complex, multidimensional, and possibly even a dependent factor. The relativistic truth of the inherent variability of the fourth dimension entails that time is not a constant, but must fluctuate within larger dimensional scales.</p> <p>A revised model of the dynamic state universe must come to superimpose an absolute construct of Euclidean 3 space upon the instantaneous continuum of the present-state universe. This construct is in a sense only an abstract superposition, but it is made necessary in our conceptioning of reality. Relativistic space-time is what we travel in, but this space-time exists within the framework of absolutistic space. This space provides a Euclidean framework within which the universal continuum unfolds. Furthermore, it is a kind of empty Machian framework in which time has no intrinsic or a priori value but in relation to the realized things that exist within this framework.</p> <p>In this framework, the relativistic universe is turned upon its head somewhat. Time is a dimensional variable that emerges from the dynamic possibility three space and if we are to posit multiple n-dimensions to our universe, they must have arisen as a complex product of this dynamic realization in three space. If a singularity principle holds in such an original framework, it holds as "Zeno's vanishing point" which says that the infinitely small is also the infinitely large.</p> <p>Another way of saying this is that the realized Universe, as a dynamic instantaneous system, occurs within a background framework defined by Euclidean 3 space, in spite of its relativistic geometries. This framework exists outside of time and instantaneously.</p> <p>Mass in motion is exactly equivalent to energy in its propagation. Both have inertia and momentum. Both translate as a minimally coherent system through the spime manifold. The point coherence of a mass system in motion requires and acquires a great deal more energy to achieve than the self-energizing effects of a light system. Once such a mass-object system has acquired its motion, it is self-maintaining as a system in a stable way indefinitely.</p> <p>The system as a whole is self-maintaining by virtue, I believe, of its own internal coherence as an internalized spime matrix and its by gravitational unification. In a sense, its point-coherence is relatively determined, unlike that for a quantized energy system, hence, its energy potential and distribution at any one instant is always relatively uniform. Indeed, it must be so.</p> <p>Gravitational unification emerges as an important concept of the principles of universal relativity. Internalized systems seek not only gravitational unification with itself, but with the surrounding spime matrix and with the entire universe. This calls up the relativistic frameworks that particularistic systems occur within. Any region of space-time, however large, and however dynamically turbulent, must achieve unification with the surrounding coherence of the larger matrix it is contained within. Thus, each system is gravitationally relative to the system that contains it. We may apply this principle universally in the largest sense possible, and we can see that the universal gravitational field is something that seeks grand unification. If the universe is infinitely large, as we suppose it to be, then it can never achieve total unification in an absolute sense. It remains always partially unified.</p> <p>Gravitational unification relates to the notion of relative gravitational equilibrium, which states that everything in the universe seeks a state of gravitational balance. This state is equivalent to motionlessness, and can be understood only if we see gravitation and its effects in gravity systems as the balance between negative gravitational energies and mass-based positive gravitational forces. A unified system exists within a state of relative gravitational equilibrium, and all gravitational systems naturally seek unification. This defines the entropic but non-thermodynamic characteristics of such systems--they are gravitationally dynamic.</p> <p>One way of saying this is to state that we cannot have a perfectly motionless system in the universe.</p> <p>Gravitational unification is related, on a quantum level, to spin binding of energy. All energy, in a unified system, is energy that enters into a spin-bound state. I hypothesize that this occurs at the level of the zeroth-entity in the whole universe. For any subsystem of the universe to attain its own internalized coherence as a spin bound system, it must achieve synchronization with the system it is contained within. Again, this can be applied universally.</p> <p>The acquisition of energy of inertia in a mass-object system in motion is its achieved momentum. It is the amount of energy required to stop the system or to bring it to rest once it is set in motion. Any system in motion in external spime is in effect a system that encounters no external interference or resistance in its motion, except perhaps by means of gravitation. As such, it is always a perfectly balanced system, as it would require as much energy to bring itself to rest, applied in the opposite direction of its motion, as it has momentum. This in effect is energy that in sum is greater than its own self-energy of momentum. It would also require a greater amount of energy to accelerate a system to a higher velocity. In such a system, the least energy is always the energy-state it is currently at. In other words, such a system always achieves relative gravitational equilibrium at its current state of energy dynamics. Any change in its current state of energy dynamics, results in gravitational disequilibrium.</p> <p>We can understand then gravitational unification as a relative phenomenon and its potential relationship to universal synchronization that is related to spin binding. We can say that universal synchronization of systems is established by means of gravitational unification of systems in its relative frame of reference. Gravitational field lines determine the structural coherence of spime in whatever framework it occurs within. These field lines serve to unify a spime field by means of its bringing the spin of its basic components into inter-harmonic oscillation. It is an instantaneous resonance control system.</p> <p>Disintegrative "explosions" are created when a violent collision of two objects occurs that results in their instantaneous "unification" as systems from different directions. The coherence of the original systems as a determined state-trajectory is suddenly transformed by the discontinuity of their instantaneous transition to a slower speed or lower level of momentum. Energy must be released or realized somehow in the system. This is usually done in a disordered manner.</p> <p>In a sense, a photon is nothing but an electron liberated from its spatial constraints as a system, that is liberated from its own spin-bound momentum of energy. The energy is thus released as an instantaneous translation in the spime manifold, retaining all its original relativistic quantum properties, but now no longer of bound form. When two photons collide, they produce instantaneously a set of opposed charge electrons of equal size, with the difference between the original photons generated as residual energy.</p> <p>We can conjecture that gravitation is really nothing but a spime that is like a quantum of light, released from its own spin bound state. The gravitational field lines are equivalent to magnetic field lines in an electromagnetic field.</p> <p>Light is included in this. Light has a mass that is perhaps close or approximately equivalent to the self-mass of normal spime. Thus it encounters no resistance in its instantaneous acceleration through spime. It is said to be self-energizing at its maximum speed. Even if it passes through a transparent medium that causes its deceleration, when it reenters the external spime matrix, it resumes its natural speed. The self-energizing properties of energy is significant of the structure of spime itself and its coherence as it translates as a system through space-time.</p> <p>Light is self-accelerated at its maximum velocity by de facto emission from its source. To take any object of any mass greater than that of light, which, by the way, is a quantum particle of relativistic mechanical form, requires a proportionately greater amount of energy to accelerate from a rest state. Once the mass-object is accelerated to some velocity, barring any interference, it will retain this velocity as a constant in normal space-time, because it achieves relative weightlessness, regardless of its size or its uniform velocity in the spime matrix. Once an object of a given absolute mass attains a certain velocity, it will remain in this velocity indefinitely in spime. This appears to violate laws of thermodynamics, which would predict a long distance decay of the state trajectory, but it is consonant with what we assume to exist for spime-gravitational dynamics. It would achieve a state of relative equilibrium at a constant speed, such that it would take a greater amount of energy either to accelerate it or decelerate it in the "emptiness" of space. It maintains a constant speed because, at that speed, it develops equal pressure from all directions, what I will call spime-gravitational buoyancy or self-cancellation of mass. We cannot assume, in its direction of travel, which is always at any one instant a single point, that it disrupts the spime manifold around it or causes an uneven disturbance in the spime. It will in effect melt the spime around itself omnidirectionally, whatever its speed and momentum or direction of travel, by virtue of its own internal gravitational displacement.</p> <p>Another way of seeing this, is that for any mass object of any size, any acquired velocity of that object will not cause any distortion of the spime manifold surrounding it, until it reaches the speed of light. At that point, the spime manifold will be rent or torn open as a hole, and the object would slip into this hole, disappearing completely from our own observational frame, if it were moving directly away from us.</p> <p>We can understand this phenomena if we realize that the field lines and nodality of normal external spime presents no resistance or pressure to any object no matter its size, shape, weight or speed. The momentum of the object in motion will remain constant, and relative to its velocity. For an object of any given size and mass to achieve light-speed, it would essentially have to achieve first the unification of its systemic field lines in a radical sense that would extend the potential range of these lines over a vary wide spherical range. This is really equivalent gravitationally to the necessary distribution of a light system at any given distance. The internal coherence of the system, whatever its velocity, must be maintained as uniform mass. What is fundamentally altered is the instantaneous space-time manifold in which it is centered. This would be seen as maximally disruptive at the point of its realization.</p> <p>From this perspective, we can understand acceleration in any one direction as the "resistance" of spime to the gravitational disruption of its normally occurring field lines in the direction of its moment transverse to its direction. This is always considered to be exact to the center of mass or gravity of the object in motion.</p> <p>I will argue that gravitational propagation of its field lines is in the universal spime matrix omni-directional from every point and virtually instantaneous. There is therefore a speed in the universe that is faster than the speed of light. It is the speed of gravitational propagation. We do not know this speed, as we have so far been unable to reproduce or measure its value. We can guess at its value by means of trigonometric functions proposed below, if we can make some inferences.</p> <p>I will speculate that if the modified model of the spime matrix as argued below is correct, then there is an energy force or set of energy forces and fields that are greater than gravitation itself. There is some hypothetical nth-force that is equivalent in speed to universal instantaneity itself, though we will never know this force. I will call it the zeroth force and it underlies all change events and known energy fields in the total universe. This zeroth force or energy may be a quintessential force in the universe, depending upon how we reason and construe its constituent elements and how we construe its relationship to spime.</p> <p>In a local sense, it is predicted that the zeroth force will be extremely miniscule and will be unnoticed in most naturally observed phenomena. In effect, it will be a forever dimensioning value, hence it is essentially a kind of "negative force field" that occurs everywhere in the universe simultaneously. To describe a negative energy field, we may say that it requires energy for it to manifest its effects. Thus, instead of yielding energy, it is like a vacuum that consumes energy. It requires energy in order to create larger order spin-resonance binding patterns and field lines. This is the energy required to accelerate or decelerate an object.</p> <p> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>To account for the hypothetical structural integrity of the entire universe, I will invoke a theoretical model of sub-spime mechanics and dynamics, implying that spime itself is but the constituent structure of some smaller set of entities.</p> <p>At this moment, though, I would like to return to the paradox that is presented by light in our spime mechanical model. Light evinces several important qualities that appear critical to our understanding of the universe.</p> <p>First, it appears to be almost if not precisely 100 percent transparent in the medium of space-time. If for no other reason alone, this is why we seem to have abandoned the ether theory. Perfect transmission of light implies a near perfect vacuum, however strangely relativistic this vacuum may be.</p> <p>Secondly, light appears in this apparent vacuum, to travel at a constant velocity. It can slow down in other transparent medium, which suggests the vacuum-like quality of the space-time manifold.</p> <p>Third, light appears, however curvilinear, to be almost perfectly uniform in its finite direction of propagation. In other words, a photon of light traveling from very far away, appears to maintain an almost perfectly straight and predictable pathway or trajectory.</p> <p>Fourth, a photon of light, even at very vast distances, does not appear to lose its inertia of energy. In other words, it is as energetic at a foot as it is at a light-year or 10,000 light-years.</p> <p>All of these apparent qualities of light, demonstrated on a daily basis and in very esoteric experiments, suggest that the space-time construct is in fact a void.</p> <p>But I will claim that a void is only an apparent phenomenon, much as the air we breath appears to be a void to our touch, except if we infer its existence from the wind that blows in the trees and our hair.</p> <p>Why does light appear to be so perfectly transparent to spime if spime exists in place of theoretical emptiness? The perfect patterning of light in space-time is, I believe, not absolute. Its effects are deterministically entropic, if somewhat extremely negligible, and most unnoticed in our everyday experiments, even in telescopic observations from very great distances. These negligible effects are probably filtered off from our long-distance observations as so much noise that is a function of the medium of our own instruments. At this level, we probably cannot tell the difference between the intereference effects of our instruments and the possible intrinsic noisiness of our otherwise perfect light.</p> <p>In understanding the transmission of light through spime, I take as a baseline the following normal model, which assumes that light is normally perfectly linear.</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR3.ht4.gif" width="558" height="155"></p> <p> </p> <p>From this model, we can state that the light path is always greater than the absolute instantaneous distance. Assuming perfect linearity of light at a constant speed, we can apply the Pythagorean theorem to calculate this distance.</p> <p>Derived from this model, we can apply both geometry and trigonometry to develop some kind of mathematics based upon light in space. For instance, we can infer that the actual instantaneous linear distance that light travels is less than the its spatiotemporal distance. This would in set theory represent a translation vector. We can infer a constant angle for this triangle for any given period of time. Any slower entity for the same period of time would have its own acute angle that would be by definition always greater than this angle.</p> <p>In fact, given the mass of any object, we could calculate in an accurate way the amount of energy it would require to accelerate it to light-speed. We could calculate the time interval any object would have to travel to go the same distance of light.</p> <p>I believe it can be both theoretically and experimentally proven that light does not transmit in a pure vacuum in space, and shows residual effects of inherent uncertainty in almost all its basic properties, i.e.,</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. Old light is less uniform.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. Old light is more directionally in-determinant.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"><u>3. Old light probably has less energy than new light.</p> </u> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">4. Old light is therefore probably not perfectly transparent to its space-time medium of normal transmission.</p> <p ALIGN="JUSTIFY">It is conjectured within this spime mechanical model that the wave-field in which light propagates is based upon a nonlinear oscillating system in the long run. The amplitude of the light will grow with increasing distance from the source, but the frequency of the light and the inherent force of the field will decrease with greater distance. This explains the noticeable red shift of light. It also suggests a pendulum effect in the original propagation of light.</p> <p>Based upon the extended laws of thermodynamics, we should somehow expect this non-linearity of light, as this too would represent an entropic system. Light would otherwise represent a form of perpetual motion machine, which we know to be unrealistic and impossible.</p> <p>It is most likely the case that we have so far factored these considerations out of our observations because they could not be clearly segregated from the interference of our own instrumentalities.</p> <p>Even if this is the case, it still would leave unaccounted the near perfectness of light, which is astounding to consider. It suggests a universe that if not completely vacuous in its intermediary spaces, is at least extremely rarefied. Even if we impose a model of the spime construct on this apparent void, we are led to conclude that spime must be either very "spaced" out or else completely invisible. I would claim that, from our point of view, it is both of these things simultaneously, even if we can also claim at the same time and paradoxically that it is always continuous and without any intermediary spaces occurring. We must understand that at the level of spime normal principles and means of observation are perhaps irrelevant to its description. It is like trying to locate an oxygen molecule in the atmosphere with a magnifying glass, or trying to capture one with a butterfly net. We lack so far any means of direct observation. We can only infer its existence from its effects.</p> <p>One thing we can say about our observations of normal light. We never ever see just one photon. We see always some set of photons. We also cannot probably just isolate one photon to view at any particular moment. It comes in clutches that are minimally coherent based upon some determinant of cardinality.</p> <p>The tremendous transparency of light in spime can be understood in several ways at once. We can say that light is a positive effect in a negative field. It is therefore as much a hole in this field as it is anything else. Of course, this "hole" we construe as a positive little "bump" or an entity. If we translate light as a trajectory, we can see it more as a tunnel in space-time than as just a hole. As such, it travels as a tunnel that is both spatio-temporally coherent. The tunnel closes in its path behind, and opens in its path in front. The apparent discontinuity of a quantum of light is this tunneling effect.</p> <p>The tunneling effect would be, if we apply it to the cosmological model suggested above, relative to the energy system it occurs within. It would be relatively large in high-energy systems, and very small in negative energy systems. A negative energy system would effectively force the light to shed off much of its energy in the process of transmission.</p> <p>Secondly, light propagation is integral to the temporally ordered wave-field of spime itself. In other words, it makes no difference at this level if we talk about the photon or the hole it leaves behind. The photon can be "interpreted" as a quantum, as an entity with particularistic properties, but it can be equally interpreted as well as but a transformation effect upon spime itself. At this level, it makes no difference. Another way of saying this is that light itself is composed of spime, and this interacts with the background spime-field.</p> <p>Third, the speed of light which is considered to be a universal constant as a threshold of energy dynamics in the universe, tells us something interesting about the possibility of spime as an ethereal medium of its normal transmission. The fact that light can be transmitted through transparent media other than space-time also demonstrates a fundamental unity of space-time to the matter it contains.</p> <p>Its speed of transmission is relatively uniform and constant in spime. It is also finite and about as instantaneous as instantaneity can get in the physical world. If it is integral to spime itself, we might say that the speed of light sets a limit on the speed of propagation that energy can attain in the universe across the fabric of spime. It suggests that spime exists as an instantaneous event horizon at this limit.</p> <p>The speed of light is a function of its inherent mass. It never changes. It is a measure of the resistance of spime to its displacement by light.</p> <p>It is communicating with itself at this speed. It communicates with itself by means of its own possible patterning, or rather its own Heisenbergian uncertainty. If we are to isolate a spime unit in one second of time, it can be in a sphere defined by the following approximate size, either greater or less than the Euclidean sphere of the same dimensions:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">4/3 <font FACE="Times New Roman">πC</font><sup>3</p> </sup> <p>If we are to descend our scale of interval measure in space-time, then we are to find that the smaller we get, below the level of spime, the wider the area that is involved in its possibilistic determination. This is a paradox. At the level of spime, however small we may conjecture that to be, its possibilistic determination (hence its relativistic indeterminancy) is on the order of scale represented above. Needless to say, spime is replete and continuous in a self-consistent way. It seems to be everywhere and nowhere at once.</p> <p>The background variation of spime pattern, its flow, perturbation and fluctuation, and the pattern of resistance it exhibits upon moving objects and energy, is in a sense always a local phenomena that is averaged out in the larger structural dynamics of space-time. Harmonic resonance patterns in the universe seek a natural state of unification.</p> <p>We might say that at every point of spime in which a photon becomes realized, the sense of discrete direction is translated along with the energy itself. We can say that a photon is a deterministic realization of the spime matrix along a precise pathway. This realization requires a certain amount of energy of a discrete kind to achieve at any one moment. From the point of original propagation of the photon, this energy and its direction is concurrently translated through the spime matrix in a nearly perfect pattern of continuous reiteration. It appears to go on forever if unimpeded and unrealized by its effects upon some other entity. If it suffers slight degradation, its degradation is the result of intrinsic variables underlying the original production of the photon in the first place.</p> <p>In this sense, electromagnetic radiation is precisely the same as gravitational radiation, which I take to be the consequence of internalized spime matrix. It radiates in similar ways and has many similar kinds of properties. I would conjecture that while electromagnetic radiation is charge polarized and mass neutral, gravitational radiation is mass polarized and charge neutral and this is the essential kind of difference between the two forces.</p> <p>Two photons that collide headlong create an electron and a positron. By such means, we can see how matter is created in the universe as the result of energy. Energy enters a spin-bound state. Another and equivalent way of saying this is to claim that energy causes the fusion of spime with itself to result in an internalized spime matrix. If this is the case then I would speculate that two gravitons that collide headlong result in the creation of a neutrino and an anti-neutrino. We do not understand these processes well enough, but in our accounting we must speculate that there is some alternative conversion pathway that leads to the creation of nucleonic matter. Such a pathway is not well understood. It is possible that if two spime or gravitoids freed from the matrix collided, they might in fact produce a component of a nucleonic particle. If we can imagine a kind of gravitational vortex or accretion field, perhaps created by ionized electron clouds created by the fusion of light energy, then we can imagine that spime within such a context can converge on a continuous basis to render the kinds of particles that make up nuclear material.</p> <p>Spime has a characteristic of omni-directional simultaneous propagation of almost unlimited amounts of energy. In other words, we might see energy as being able to be transmitted in the same unit area of spime in any direction and in any transmissible form, and apparently, to almost any amount of energy. This is a part of the apparent instantaneous and local uniformity of spime. The tunneling effect of a photon always assumes a discrete, unidirectional pathway and a determined amplitude and frequency modulation.</p> <p>If we pass two beams of light through a central point at the same time, there is almost no noticeable interference effect upon either path of light. In fact, there probably are neglible interference effects.</p> <p>In otherwords, in the diagram below, a beam of light from souce A that intersects at right angles to a beam of light from source B, will leave no non-neglible interference side effects upon the resulting beam A' and B' such we may obtain some kind of information residual information about the other beam A- and B- respectively.</p> <p>This of course assumes a perfect vacuum as is presumed to occur in space.</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR3.ht5.gif" width="548" height="293"></p> <p>In this experiment it is to be asked whether at the central intersection if there are not noticeable side effects of the interference of photons colliding from tangential directions. We would expect, in such a case, the possibility of tangential beams of diffusion at forty-five degree angles from the direction of propagation or else a zone of diffusion surrounding the region of intersection, or both.</p> <p>It is predicted that in a near perfect vacuum, there should be almost no noticeable interference of the two beams, of any given magnitude, though there may well be negligible side effects. It is unknown if there is not some degree of energy at which greater side effects may be produced. We can imagine a modified experiment as below, in which any given number of lasers are spherically arranged to target the center of a spherical body. A two way mirror exists on the opposite side of each laser to both reflect the light back and to transmit the energy beyond the sphere:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR3.ht6.gif" width="587" height="270"></p> <p> </p> <p>In this experiment, it is to be asked what would be the effects of the common intersection given any number of beams. The information of each beam can be recorded at the point of its exit from the system or its rebound back through the center. We can modify such an experiment in a number of ways. We can use a single beam of light and an internally reflective surface to create a kind of resonance cavity that is spherical in shape and as vacuous as we could make it. We could magnify and multiple the number of intersecting beams an nth number of times. I cannot say clearly what the result of such a set of experiments would be.</p> <p>It is known that a laser itself is a resonance amplification cavity that allows light to achieve a degree of coherent intensification it doesn't otherwise achieve. This suggests that multiple beams of light crossing a common point will exhibit minimal interference effects, and these interference effects should magnify nonlinearly with the intensification of the beams of light themselves, or in the focusing of the point of intersection.</p> <p>I can imagine the extension of similar kinds of experiments to embrace gravitation itself, and the application of such a device to a number of purposes. In our light experiments, we have the suggestion of two sets of interrelated issues.</p> <p>1. To what extent, in any given area of normal space-time, can light and/or gravitation be transmitted simultaneously from any given direction to a common focal point without interference or other side effects. I believe this defines an intrinsic limit that is structurally important about the coherence of space-time itself.</p> <p>2. How much might light naturally occurring in the universe, exhibit similar patterns of interference from its intersection in the space-time manifold with incidental light from other sources?</p> <p>For instance, it is presumed that gravitational interference from two or more gravitating bodies in proximity to one another might result in periodic interference patterns or gravitational waves.</p> <p>Another aspect of this set of questions concerns, I believe, the fundamental integrity of spime itself as this is manifest over its universal wave-front that is always four dimensionally expressed. We may say that, in a possibilistic sense, a single spime may occur or be realized instantaneously over a very large area. At the same time, we might say that in order to realize a spime in any particular instance at any particular place requires a certain amount and kind of positive energy transformation occurring. In other words, two spime cannot be at the same point at the same time without self-cancellation occurring. The blinking effect I attribute to spime may be the result of this kind of pattern of continuous self-cancellation of spime by momentary instantaneous co-occurrence of two or more spime.</p> <p>But we also might say that for a spime to be localized at any particular point in space-time, it can also assume and almost limitless magnitude or amplitude or amount of energy. A way of seeing this is to state that in a negative field, for any instance, an almost unlimited amount of energy can be realized from the surrounding possiblistic space, but always just from a very brief, microcosmic moment.</p> <p>Light coming together upon a focal point from a variety of different sources, however far or strong, can be simultaneously transmitted through the point of intersection with only minimal interference. In order to accomplish this, the spime at that point can draw on a vast resource pool of the surrounding negative energies locked and hidden in the external spime matrix.</p> <p>Really, at the point of intersection, we do not have to regard what is really occurring even as intersecting beams of light. In a vacuum, this intersection should remain invisible. What we can regard to be happening is a fundamental and temporary transformation of the spime matrix itself, focused upon that point and enduring for the length of the transmissions and intersection.</p> <p>Light we receive from distant sources, even if very feint, still comes as photonic bundles that contain a considerable amount of information, about at least three separate sets of entities. The source of original transmission, the pathway of its propagation and the instrumentalities of its final realization or effect.</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR3.ht7.gif" width="587" height="155"></p> <p>In our current model of cosmology and physical reality, we assume that space-time is a virtual vacuum. If there is interference of light, then it comes from an intervening body or particulate matter or a gravitational or Einstein shift. We assume that most information we receive is either about the source or about our own reception, the latter of which is regarded mostly as noise and is thus somehow filtered by means of triangulation and parallax.</p> <p>The light we receive is always in bundled form. It is thus received both over time and over some range of space. We piece together the information we receive to create a bundle and this bundle is organized in some minimal form to convey information about the distant source, at least. If spime exists as a medium of energetic propagation, then it should exhibit some minimal effect upon this information, and this information will be a kind of fuzzy effect or else a banding effect between that of noise and original information.</p> <hr> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Chapter IV</p> </font><font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The Physical Structure of Reality</p> </font><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The Space-Time Construct & the Unified Field Model</p> </font> <p> </p> <p><b><font size="6">E</font></b>xactly what and how the space-time construct works, beyond its geometrical description, as a general field theory for the propagation of energy, has not been fully explained, and until it is better understood, our cosmological models of the universe are likely to remain deficient in a basic sense. If space-time can warp and bend as the result of gravitation, and if things traveling through it obey certain universal principles regulating the irreversible and unidirectional translation and transformation of motion and change, then it strikes me that this construct must in fact be something, rather than an empty realm of void and nothingness.</p> <p>The spime mechanical model of the space-time construct I have resurrects to some extent the old ether-wave theory that was based upon Maxwellian equations. These have been shown to be incorrect and unnecessary as a description of the effects of space-time upon light. Nevertheless, light appears to exhibit effects in space-time, and gravitation appears to exhibit effects upon space-time and light. These effects have not been sufficiently explained, though they have been partially described.</p> <p>The difference between the ether theory and the spime mechanical theory is in understanding the Heisenbergian uncertainty that underlies the phenomenal patterning of space-time. Spime, a portmanteau of space-time, I take to be a kind of quantum entity that is universally replete. It has self-mass, self-gravitation and some other dynamic properties that can be associated with it. It normally exists in the space-time manifold in a "self-consistent" way, not that it may not be a constituent construct, which I believe it to probably be, but that in space-time, it always cancels itself out in a basic way.</p> <p>Spime can be used singularly or plural, and this is perhaps fortuitous in the meta-logic of its nominality. Spime may exist simultaneously as both a single and a plural entity. We can speak of spime as either like spine or as slime and this would not be entirely inaccurate or off-center in its description. Thus it appears to have amazingly uniform structure in some ways, and amazingly dynamic and malleable structure in other ways. As a kind of "substance" in its basic form it has qualities that are unlike any other known substance. But as a substance that underlies hypothetically all other substances in the universe, it also shares many of the common qualities of matter and energy we are usually familiar with.</p> <p>Spime cohere in the space-time manifold to create what I have called the external spime matrix. The four-dimensional space-time continuum, with all its relativistic properties of ripples and curves and geodesics, is essentially this matrix. I believe it exhibits properties that are best described in terms of a kind of fluid dynamics or continuum. But we must be careful, because, as the stuff of space-time, it is not exactly and in all ways fluid-like in our conventional understanding of currents and forces.</p> <p>Being like fluid, spime possibly flows in an isotropic manner through the larger universe, though we do not see it as such. Alternatively, its flow may be reciprocal, occurring in both directions at once. In a sense, most of what we experience or view as gravitation, is really nothing but the fluid pressure of the flow of spime in the universe. Objects move because they are embedded in a spime matrix that is flowing in a current.</p> <p>But what is remarkable about this flow is that unlike most conventional fluid models, on a small scale spime appears to be remarkably uniform and lacking the eddies and torrential Brownian movements of its spime. If these kinds of eddies are found, they are found an a very vast scale. On any local scale, the movement appears remarkable uniform and geometrically describable in terms that are not so fluid-like.</p> <p>At the same time, forms of electromagnetic and possibly gravitational radiation appear to propagate through it in almost a perfectly transparent medium. If it leaves any effects upon the light transmitted through it, then these effects are extremely miniscule and negligible, and have, until now, mostly escaped our notice. Though perhaps not completely.</p> <p>It is in this kind of paradox about spime that we need to find some answers about its basic structure. I believe that these answers rest in our understanding of spime as simultaneously both instantaneous and possibilistic in expression. At the level of spime, even the Heisenbergian uncertainties of quantum mechanics are stretched to their limits. It is in this that we can seek to understand the meaning of "negative space" and "negative energy" and even "negative matter" as some kind of shadow effect that is physically left over from the stochastic determination of the "positive" universe. We can hypothesize something like the following formula:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">xP<sup>e+</sup> + yN<sup>e-</sup> = 0e</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">xy = 1e</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">where P is the positive energy occurring in a transaction and N is the negative energy (entropy or inertia) occurring in the same transaction, and where x & y are variables of space-time.</p> <p>One other effect that is commonly observed in the Universe is the red shift of distant light. This is explained as the recession of distant galaxies, and as evidence of a cosmic big bang, among other things. Universal expansion of distant galaxies can only be adequately explained, as the expansion of a balloon, as the continuous and regular expansion of the space-time construct itself. Because this is seen mostly as being void, we have not sought to understand the dynamics of this expansion, but have rather interpreted it as evidence of intergalactic recession. This evidence is perhaps more confirmatory and demonstrative of the basic unity between matter and space-time than anything else we know of, and it demonstrates what is everywhere readily apparent, and that is the flow and motion of objects as a result of their being embedded in a spime matrix.</p> <p>In the theoretical reinterpretation of this evidence, I would suggest that this also provides evidence for fluctuations of universal constants--the universe is allowed to expand poly-nomially in its spime-construct only as the result of the dynamic alteration of the time factors that are affecting this universe. This implies two things. First, it implies that this universe, if it is "pulling itself" apart, is probably in fact infinite, and part of a more complex multi-universe system. It is possible, that if we could look over the observable event horizon of our universe, we might see some other universe or set of universes that is simultaneously in an oscillatory cycle of contraction. This can only be highly conjectural at this stage, but it is both suggestive and suggested by a systems approach that sees the universe as a minimal coherent system of energy exchange.</p> <p>From our local point of view, this process of expansion can be understood merely as the universe predictably obeying some variant of the laws of thermodynamics. Indeed it is in some regional sense, but in a total framework, it must be infinite because otherwise we would have to speculate on the existence of a perpetual motion machine. Any real perpetual motion machine can only be infinite and explained by the notion of infinitude. We can say that only upon the infinitely vanishing horizons of infinity, something and nothing, chaos and order, become absolute and unified.</p> <p>To go back to our conceptualization of spime mechanics and its fundamental paradoxes, it becomes a question of scale of the very large and the very small. In the very large and the very small, intermediate transition processes may appear quite uniform. The very small governs the very large in some direct sense, as it underlies the intermediate. At the level of spime, we experience a sense of geo-physical unification that is both immediately instantaneous and universally extensive. We experience this as a wave front, not a wave front that is propagated spatially. The spatial vectors are really just orthogonal projections and cross-sections of this propagation. We can say that time is wave-like in the space time construct. It ripples not in a straight arrow, but in a sub-quantum pattern of harmonic oscillation. We might therefore re-invoke Maxwell's equations in a temporal vector to understand temporal translation and transformation, and under stand spime as an ethereal quality that is not so much spatially manifest as it is temporally articulated.</p> <p>Another way of saying this is that there is fundamental Heisenbergian uncertainty to time itself. Time is inherently, on some basic level, malleable and flexible. It may be stretched and squeezed. More importantly, it is translation. It may be on a basic level in-determinant. We see time as being a fundamental constant. We impose temporal intervals of measure as some of the most basic and incontestable frames of reference we can invoke in the sciences. Special relativity taught us the relativity of time.</p> <p>But the relativity of time goes beyond special relativity, as it underlies the principles of universal relativity.</p> <p>To understand this, we might see that spime is attached as tendrils that extend forward in time. We can say that the homogeneous structure of spime is a kind of graininess that runs in the direction of time. If we travel through space, we are crosscutting this grain. We encounter resistance because we are not flowing with the grain of time. If we stand still, our flow with time is perfectly uniform. Thus, we cannot clearly define one "instance" as occurring precisely at one moment or the next or the previous. On some basic level, times arrow as sequential continuity becomes blurred and continuous. What we see as continuity of direction of time is really be an intermediate view of physical reality. On a very small scale, time can become confused as possibilistic succession events--in this model, a previous point may occur after a future point.</p> <p>If the temporal grain of time determines that all things must flow through time most easily and in a minimal sense without motion, spime somehow holds itself together in a kind of gravitational-magnetic force field that links the spime units together and universally synchronizes its time flow pattern. I call these spime field lines that arise omni-directionally from each point-instance of spime. These field lines are expressed as a kind of three-dimensional grid or graph that has clear metrical properties. They are not actual lines in any positive sense, but negative lines expressed as linear possibilities. They represent potential pathways through the spime matrix. What is normally accomplished through these pathways is communication in a wave like manner of the temporal standard by which all events are synchronized simultaneously.</p> <p>The flow of spime in the universe is therefore not so much a spatial phenomenon, as it is temporal as an event patterning. Spime mechanics can perhaps be understood better as temporal and causal patterns of change than they can as conventional spatial models.</p> <p>It is the coherence of the wave-front of spime in time that is of greatest interest to me. It is apparent that this coherence is everywhere in the three dimensional spatial universe simultaneous. I believe it to be inviolable and fundamental about universal relativity. We can say that all clocks, whatever their size, must be synchronized within the same universal frame of reference. This is possible only at the level of spime mechanics. Thus, a large object, say a pulsar or quasar or average sun, is in fact like a huge clock that has its own synchronization dynamics. An atom of hydrogen, even a proton or neutron, are also very small clocks that have their own synchronization dynamics.</p> <p>The concept of gravitational unification that I have invoked to explain the accretion of matter within gravity-based systems, can be understood in terms of the relativistic synchronization of all the clocks of the constituent components of the object, no matter what the phenomenal and intermediate matrix structure.</p> <p>By deductive inference, we can say that the entire observable universe exists in a kind of universal spime-gravitational field that achieves dynamic gravitational unification of all the synchronous clocks by means of its interconnected field-lines. The concept of gravitational unification, as this is observed in large mass objects, is important therefore to understanding the basic structure of spime in the universe. In such bodies, spime is turned "outside-in" and rendered in concentric orientation such that the flow of the grain is inward to the center, and the field lines radiate outwardly in all directions as geodesics. In the externalized matrix, spime is turned "inside-out" and instead of a concentric orientation, it might assume a formation in 3-dimensions that can be construed as an unstable nodal configuration at every point. Field lines are turned inwardly at every possible point, and spime always flows outwardly from itself. I suspect that normally occurring field lines in the Universe appear as concentric interference bands, like sound waves traveling transversely from the source of articulation, that occur everywhere simultaneously.</p> <p>If we are to understand the expansion of the space-time manifold in the intergalactic regions, we must see it as this kind of process where spime is flowing outward from itself, indeed flooding outwardly, from seemingly nowhere. Gravity, instead of showing its positive effects, as upon earth, exhibits the reverse negative effects.</p> <p>I will speculate that the flooding out of spime in intergalactic regions may result in a tremendous energy vacuum that captures radiant energy that is passing through it. It does not do this in whole or all at once. It does it by shedding the energy of its component elements. As a result of this energy vacuum, most starlight is returned to its spime matrix, from which it originated indirectly, and what we see from space in the darkness of the night sky is but the after-effects of stray light.</p> <p>We do not notice this effect because the propagation of light is like a wave front in a Maxwellian sense. In fact it is the photonic emission of quanta, but omni-directionally. The shedding of light is done as a form of "diffusional filter" that assures that the core percentage of light is always retained in whatever direction. We can thus resolve what has long been known as Obler's paradox and has been regarded as basic evidence for a finite, zero-state universe. If all the starlight were perfectly propagative forever, without any kind of intermediary effects occurring whatsoever, then the night sky would be infinitely bright, even brighter than the daytime sky and the daytime sky would be like a shadow.</p> <p>On the other hand, though most light is trapped in its transmigration across the universe, it still everywhere reaches whatever final destination it was originally directed toward. It allows us to gather its information and to judge distances and substances from very immense distances, depending upon the fidelity and refinement of our own receptive instruments.</p> <p>The strength of this negative pressure in the exterior regions of spime matrix would depend directly upon the remoteness and relative strength of alternative gravitational sources.</p> <p>In effect, just the reverse process may occur in the depths of intergalactic space as can be observed in the core of gravitating bodies. If we exhibit positive pressures in the earth, for instance, we can refer to "negative" pressures in such normal regions. It is possible that in some very remote regions, such negative pressures become so great and tremendous, that matter passing through the region will break up and disintegrate. Perhaps this explains a kind of boundary that tends to segregate and isolate galaxies at such great distances. No independent stellar objects are observed to migrate between or form in these regions.</p> <p>We can speak also of intermediate regions occurring that exhibit flow patterns that are most fluid-like as we understand this. These are regions we would consider to be "normal" space-time though they may be in fact quite dynamic and variable in pattern. We have a picture of a gradient of positive to negative spime matrix that naturally occurs in the universe:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR4.ht14.gif" width="702" height="376"></p> <p> </p> <p>This kind of model poses a very dynamic state upon the observable universe. We do not see much of what is normally occurring, because as a negative shadow effect, it is essentially invisible to our eyes, sensitive as they are to positive electromagnetic radiation. This kind of picture corroborates what we can call a complementary state universe, and supports the plausibility of a symmetrical state universe as well..</p> <p>If we can assume a principle of universal parity occurring, then we can consider that there is a "reverse universe" that is a normal complement to our own "positive-state" universe. In essence in such an "opposite" universe, everything would be the opposite compared to what we construe it in our universe. Time would flow in the opposite direction relative to our own. If we could take the diagram above, and map it onto a sphere, such that the four vertices touch at the poles of one hemisphere of the sphere, then we can imagine a point of intersection at these poles in which the reverse-parity universe existed. This would be mapped onto the other hemisphere in the same but opposite way.</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR4.ht15.gif" width="654" height="516"></p> <p>I would call this the "physical reality sphere." Time's arrow would represent therefore a spinning of the sphere about its north-south axis. I have plotted the reality equator as the line of "normal equilibrium" of a system. It can be seen that mass ascends up the longitudes of the sphere, and energy moves around the equator of the sphere. A point is reached in which a conversion or basic crossing over into opposite dimensionalities is achieved. In this sphere, spime would represent the surface of the sphere, and its spinning, motion through time. It is eternal, and in three-dimensional space, it is infinite.</p> <p> </p> <p>Thus, we could project the surface of this sphere out eternally in all directions at the same time. All of this would be turning in the same way. And this would represent total physical reality, as we are capable of knowing it or understanding it.</p> <p>Depending on how we conceptualize and discover the Southern Hemisphere of the negative universe, we may in fact find the entire Southern Hemisphere united into a single entity, or unity, without clear demarcation. One may find one's way to either a left-handed or right-handed universe merely by slipping below the equator line of normal spime. Furthermore, if an evolutionary model as proposed herein is accurate, it suggests that in fact at the North Pole of the reality sphere, where we would encounter black-hole effects, we have in fact entrance to an entirely new sphere of reality:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR4.ht16.gif" width="529" height="241"></p> <p> </p> <p>In fact, we can imagine that the North Pole and South Pole are united within the same hemisphere. Instead of presupposing another universe, we presuppose that entrance into a black hole leads to a creation of zeroth entities upon the annihilation of all forms of positive energy and mass as we know these things. At this point they reenter the negative structure of the universe in a totally random manner. If negative space appears to be flooding out in intergalactic space, then it is likely that this is being produced from somewhere, other than just the recapture of incidental energies as these cross the vast outer limits of our universe.</p> <p>The boundary between the left and right hand hemispheres is another issue requiring careful consideration. The presupposition of a symmetrical state universe arises from the observation of universal symmetry in the universe. We find the production of anti-particles in all instances, and yet in the normally occurring positive-state universe, we find only instances of a right-hand spin state. In fact, the inference of non-reciprocal transition of mass-binding is supported by this evidence. We must ask, if a right-hand positive state universe is normally created, then what happens to the left-handed entities that might arise from such a process.</p> <p>It might be more clearly clarified if we seek to understand that it is possible that such crossing processes do not normally occur anywhere or anytime in the universe, but arise under certain conditions in certain regions of the universe. It is conjectured that if left and right-hand spin particles came into contact, then the result would be the instantaneous annihilation of both particles and the realization of extremely prodigious amounts of energy. In fact, anti-particles may actually and commonly enter into parity-bound states. I would suggest that what we would witness if, for instance, a left-handed galaxy collided with a right-handed galaxy, would not be a catastrophic explosion event, like a big bang, but rather a mutual neutralization effect of both systems simultaneously in a kind of cosmic parity.</p> <p>In answering this kind of question, we must therefore seek to understand how the universe might maintain a systematic boundary between left and right hand states in such a manner as to allow their parallel coexistence, even possibly their interpenetration, without direct interconnection. In a sense, on a very basic level, the left and right-hand state universes are essentially mirror universes, though subsequent or derivative transition effects in each would be fundamentally independent of one another. We thus get a picture such as the following:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR4.ht17.gif" width="519" height="241"></p> <p> </p> <p>If we are to seek the non-reciprocal transition effects across the equatorial spime line, it is possible that a particle or positive energy event realized in the right-handed universe automatically includes the realization of a anti-event in the left-handed hemisphere simultaneously. In a sense, we can see that the hemisphere is connected at the equator in a transverse plane of normal spime.</p> <p>I would furthermore speculate that such conditions occur not anywhere upon the transverse equatorial plane, but at the points of juncture that relate the normal speed-of-light limit to the limit of absolute zero. In other words, positive energy events, and particles, are realized at the limit of relative zero where they cross the threshold from negative to positive universes. This same threshold allows a simultaneous transverse axis crossing between opposed state universes. There is a positive physical boundary separating left and right hemispheres, but there is no negative physical boundary separating negative hemispheres. The negative hemisphere remains united as a passive reciprocal network system.</p> <p>We can imagine, therefore, a crossing event occurring at a point that I will call, not absolute zero, but relative zero. I will assume that in the larger frame of reference of the universal field, absolute zero is in fact a relative phenomenon:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR4.ht18.gif" width="558" height="260"></p> <p> </p> <p>If we imagine the universe crossing the center at the absolute zero point, producing two non-mirror positive state universes, then we can also imagine an event might also cross the light-speed threshold, which I take to be a relative variable, rather than a constant, or what I call absolute light-speed.</p> <p>It yields essentially a reciprocal system. This is exactly what appears to occur with the collision of two photons. In such a model, we would reverse the arrows:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR4.ht19.gif" width="558" height="231"></p> <p>The paradox of this transition is that, as far as we know and can infer, we would only cross the threshold from one positive hemisphere, but we would have to yield a reciprocal effect in the negative hemisphere. We might speculate that in order for any mass object to accomplish this feat, it must have a counterforce that is greater than itself. In other words, it would have to apply as a propulsive force a total instantaneous energy that is greater than the total energy itself comprises.</p> <p>The notion of relative zero and relative-light speed broaches an inherent dilemma about understanding our reality. We see only one side of it in a normal sense, hence its basic constraints appear to us to be absolute and inviolable. It is possible, nevertheless, indeed, necessary, that if we are to posit alternative state universes, then these kinds of constraints that govern our own positive state universe must be relative to that positive state, and to the larger total system it occurs within.</p> <p>There is another facet of this problem that may be frequently overlooked. The real transition pathways in this hypothetical reality sphere are not necessarily only at the vertices of the sphere, but can range, under special conditions, anywhere along the hypothetical "perimeter" of the system. Thus, the crossing of the spime threshold of negative energy into positive states does not have to occur exactly at an absolute zero threshold, but possibly anywhere along the line that connects this vertex to the North Pole of the black hole. In other words, we can imagine the creation of new mass and energy not just in the outer limits of intergalactic space, but in the core of large mass-bodies where spime induction and mass-fusion are alleged to be common processes. These do not occur under conditions anywhere near a zero temperature threshold, so we must inquire as to what might be possible under such conditions.</p> <p>Invoking a concept of relative zero suggests that at the core of large gravitational systems, there might be a saturated energy system such that, within the confines of the core, there occurs relative gravitational neutralization of all positive events. In other words, such a system, amidst intense heat and pressurization levels, achieves a state of gravitational unification of spime and spime induction. It suggests that in the mirror universes of the positive hemisphere, for every solar system producing energy in the left-handed universe, there is a corresponding solar system producing energy in the right-handed universe simultaneously. We would expect therefore that all solar systems "line up" along the perimeter of the reality sphere, such that spime inducing into such systems comes out in non-reciprocal effects in both symmetrical universes simultaneously.</p> <p>Gravitational radiation produced from large mass objects may not be "positive state radiation," but negative radiation produced from the mirror state system, or the opposite side of our reality sphere. This sets up a possibility for such a system to interconnect with itself in complex ways that reflect an overall symmetry, conservation and balance in reality.</p> <p>It also follows with the principle of relative light-speed that systems of sufficient mass do not have to necessarily actually obtain what is known as absolute light speed in order to effect a relative crossing into reciprocal negative states. We would witness such systems perhaps in a destructive or disintegrative sense that they would either explode or fade out upon the horizon of our positive state universe. Relative light-speed might be considered to be a mass-system that achieves sufficient energy saturation from motion that it effectively crosses the threshold back into a negative state, rendering reciprocal effects.</p> <p>Another consideration of this model of the reality sphere is to understand what possibly occurs at the equator, what I call the normal spime equator. Normal spime represents in this model the most stable and steady state level of the entire system. It defines in a sense a universal equilibrium line. This line is in a sense a vanishing horizon line. It never actually exists. Perhaps it can be seen as a threshold or limit that is approached, and possibly crossed at junctures along the perimeter of the system. In a sense, this line represents a state of absolute equilibrium of the entire system. We can imagine that in effect dynamic events crossing the threshold represent vibratory oscillations of this equilibrium line:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR4.ht20.gif" width="606" height="193"></p> <p> </p> <p>In a sense, we can imagine that fluctuation events relating to continuous crossing of thresholds and even normal dynamics in physical reality, result in continuous perturbations of this line of equilibrium that resonate through the entire system. This describes in essence the universal field that forms the physical texture of reality. We can say that all fluctuation events occur within the parametric boundaries of the system, such that any events that attempt to cross that threshold instantaneously crosses into the alternative state structure of the universe.</p> <p>The integrity of the universal fabric of spime is what is at issue in this model. Any fluctuation can occur while maintaining the integrity of the structure of the universe.</p> <p>This model presents to us a curious paradox about reality, for if it is correct, then it tells us that we in fact exist in a universe in which there is a mirror state that is precisely contemporaneous with our own. It would connect to our own at almost every point we can imagine, and yet which remains essentially oblivious and untouchable to us in our own positive state. We infer its existence only from knowing certain principles of reality, like symmetry and reciprocity, which appear fundamental to all physical phenomena of reality.</p> <p>It is not easy to imagine this model or resolve it with our normal experience of reality. I have no clear way of reconciling this model with our conventional understanding of reality. We are left with an inferable model of the universe that is complete in some regards, and yet which remains infinite and continuous. And it remains a model that as a whole we might never completely or directly observe. It is difficult to found a science on groundwork that remains essentially unobservable.</p> <p>Three-dimensional space as we experience it would be basically a 2-dimensional orthogonal projection onto a plane that bisects through the center of the sphere. We can imagine an infinite number of spatial planes aligned along the vertical axis.</p> <p>In this model, I would hypothesize the following grand equations, the basic spin of the zeroth-entity of the universe, is equal to the spin of the entire reality sphere. It is virtually time itself expressed as simultaneously co-occurring change.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">1(o) = 1(u)</p> <p>We can superimpose alternate spin patterns of this reality sphere, in almost a random basis, which would suggest a multi-state universe that is simultaneously co-occurring with our own, and which is made up of the same spime matrix. We would never directly come into contact with it, as it would be fundamentally separated at every point from our own. The structure of the entire sphere of physical reality would be defined by the spinning of its internal clock.</p> <p>We can go one step further, and imagine the sphere of reality itself to be expanding, which I believe it to be, or shrinking, which it might do in some more complex system of which it is but a part. I can imagine a kind of Torus shape that defines oscillatory patterns of cycles of transformation. Evidence of this grander pattern might be suggested in a kind of "wobble" effect of its equilibrium line. It would not describe any straight line as we know it or would think it to be, though we could not notices its unevenness in any direct way.</p> <p>If we rotate this sphere about its main axis, we can see that the temporal dimension is really the spinning of the sphere.</p> <p>As we would flow through normal space-time, we will reach a point, defined not so much by time or space, but by our relevant energy-mass dynamics in either a positive or negative sense. If we could pass the basic thresholds of our energy-mass dynamics, absolute zero, the speed of light, super-mass or hypothetical "zero space" then we would possible find ourselves in our own reverse-state universe. If we could convert our own material integrity in tact, we might not notice the transformation, as every thing would appear otherwise normal to us.</p> <p>Derived from this, I believe, is an essential cosmological structure of the universe that refers to the relativity of not only space-time and energy-mass, but of gravity and pressure. We can picture this sense of relativity in the following diagram:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR4.ht21.gif" width="491" height="302"></p> <p> </p> <p>This model suggests a more complex relationship between time, space, energy, mass and gravity than otherwise expected. Generally, things must move along the edge of this diagram. Things occurring below the centerline would exist essentially "out of time." As things move up the negative side, they increase in potential energy to the level of its realization at the speed of light. At the center-line, we find the positive expression of energy and the neutralization of zero-gravity. It can be expected that as things move at different speeds, their gravitational values will change accordingly. In other words, gravity itself as a system is relative to the framework of the expression of energy, time mass and space.</p> <p>Another way of approaching this problem is to consider that the inverse relationship of time and space to the energy system it occurs within, is really a function of the gravitational system in which these values are embedded. The gravitational system itself is relative to the position that it occurs within in the reality sphere. All known phenomena exist along the gradient between the extreme limits or vertices of the system. We recognize phenomena occurring only on the positive hemisphere of reality, and can only indirectly infer negative phenomena in the negative hemisphere.</p> <hr> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Chapter V</p> </font><font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Observable & Inferable Universes</p> </font><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">& The Paradoxes of Instantaneity</p> </font> <p> </p> <p><b><font size="6">W</font></b>e are led to ask a residual question that on the surface may appear trivial. The background darkness of the night sky is regarded by many experts as a probable indication of a finite, zero-state universe. If it were infinite, it is concluded that in the larger framework, there would be an infinitely bright background radiation from an infinite number of sources of light converging simultaneously upon the earth. This can be demonstrated mathematically to occur if we assume an average spacing between galaxies as we presume this to occur. This is known as Olber's paradox and was proposed quite early in 1823.</p> <p>If we are to assume a non-zero state universe, then Olber's paradox must be resolved. I believe it can only be resolved if we consider the likelihood that not only does light curve in its normal transmission, but it also, in the long run, gradually degrades. This degradation is a function of distance from the source, and is the result of both intrinsic uncertainty occurring at the source of propagation, and the result of both random and continuous processes of intermittent interference during the history of the propagative effect. The long-distance result, is a growing self-cancellation of light as a non-deterministic phenomenon. It grows increasingly incoherent and asymptotically unstable in the large, eventually winding up as so much background noise. The curvature of light in long arc's does not mean that the universe must thereby be closed, it only means that light ultimately will not escape its source except by means of its non-deterministic self-cancellation.</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht22.gif" width="471" height="337"></p> <p> </p> <p>According to this model, if light traveled in vast arcs, only to return to the point where it originated, as predicted by a general theory of relativity with an empty space-time construct, then each energy emitting body above would have a spherical shell of light surrounding it. Only those bodies that are to be found within this shell of light would be observable from that body. Thus, in the diagram above, it can be seen that though from the vantage-point of A, we can see bodies B and C, but body D would remain invisible to us. From the vantage-point of B, bodies A and D would be visible but body C would be invisible.</p> <p>By this model, it is clearly evident that an inferable universe can be infinitely greater than an observable universe, and the universe viewed from each vantage-point would look fundamentally different.</p> <p>If this is a correct model then we should not be surprised if one day we travel to a distant star or galaxy, only to discover new stars in places we did not know existed before.</p> <p>This might help to explain why the sky remains dark in the infinite regress of space. If we hypothesize a spime mechanical model of the space-time construct, then it would be predicted that light from the furthest margins would be received as quite fuzzy and out of focus, and this would also set an inherent constraint and limitation of observability from any one vantage point.</p> <p>Even if the universe was "flat" and open in space-time, and infinite in scale and extent, we might still impose the limits of observability as implied by a spime mechanical model. Even if light curved randomly and omni-directionally, ever so slightly, from its source, it would mean that with increasing distance, the amount of light received would fall away not as a linear function of the distance, or 1/R<sup>2</sup>, but as a non-linear function of uncertainty that would increase in time.</p> <p>These are by no means residual questions to be asked about the universe. Light from very vast distances remains remarkably coherent and true to form, almost perfectly so, as long as our instruments are capable of receiving and interpreting this information. We could not have built a science of astronomy and astrophysics if light did not exhibit its nearly perfect uniformity and coherence. I would suggest that this coherence of light is in essence the remarkable coherence of space-time itself in a particular range of its alternative state manifestation. It happens to be a range that is particularly amenable to photoelectric instruments.</p> <p>One of the paradoxes of the Big Bang is that as we define some arbitrary limit in time to the cosmic egg, say 16 billion light-years, as our instruments approach that limit in any direction, we are describing a sphere of observation that increases in size by the measure above. And yet, at this vast distance in any direction, we are in fact hypothesizing not a continuous expansion of space-time, but a continuous spatial compression as we look back deeper and deeper in time. A point would be reached that we would look in opposite directions of the night sky, and arrive at the same instantaneous point of origination of the cosmic egg. At that point, objects observed at a 32 billion light year diameter of a sphere of observation, could not be assumed to be that far apart, but infinitely close together.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht23.gif" width="587" height="366"></p> <p> </p> <p>If such is the case, then we have the paradox of looking in every direction simultaneously, at a maximum distance, and seeing the same point of origination. What we would be seeing is in a sense a translation of the same event in all regions of the universe simultaneously, and we would know that indeed, like the proverbially small insect on the surface of an orange, we existed in a bound universe that curved upon itself.</p> <p>If this were the case, then we would know that the universe is at least a diameter of 16 billion light years but we could not observe what the <u>contemporaneous</u> universe looked like at 16 billion light years distant. We could not know if it was expanding or contracting or what. We would have to wait for the changes to occur over another 16 billion years, in order to see what was happening in those distant regions of the universe. Neither could we know exactly what our own system, and our own earth, was doing exactly relatively to the rest of the contemporaneous universe. We could not tell the exact point of origin of the big bang, relative to ourselves on earth, or relative to the current distribution of the distant universe.</p> <p>On the other hand, if we found the curvature of light to be non-critical to our ability to see distant sources of light, then we do not need to hypothesize its shell-like effect upon our observability of deep events. We are left with the radical notion that the universe is deeper and broader in space-time than 16 billion light-years, and is possibly greater than 32 billion light years across. At that stage, a big bang would be impossible as it has been conceived as a cosmic and cataclysmic event.</p> <p>Perhaps some limited evidence comes to our rescue in resolving this kind of paradox. Proximate stars appear just that, proximate and relatively stable. If we are moving, we appear to be moving in a more or less common frame of reference about some galactic center of balance. A star 4-10 light years away does not appear to have changed its position significantly over the last 50 or 100 years. It means that it is not obviously receding from ourselves, and if there is intergalactic expansion of space-time between ourselves and these nearby systems, it is not noticeable. We might hypothesize a similar case for galaxies approximate to our own that are known to be a part of some cluster or super-cluster of galaxies.</p> <p>Hypothesized recession of distant galaxies is just that, the speeding away of galaxies as common frames of reference for the stars they contain. All the stars of the same galaxy at least appear to be receding in a more or less uniform way away from us. And yet the galaxies themselves do not appear to be falling apart internally or changing substantially from year to year of our observation. Their internal order as gravitational systems appears to overcome or to be greater than any larger pattern of spatiotemporal expansion that is occurring between distant galaxies. Recessional expansion of remote galaxies appears both omni-directional and uniform according to the Hubble constant. And yet, this appears uniform only in a larger sense, and not necessarily in any local or more immediate or even in a regional context of any particular galaxy or super-cluster of galaxies. They go about their business in their own developmental histories even if they are all moving in an omni-directionally uniform way. Neither does this business appear to be essentially any different at 10 billion years radius from the earth, or even greater.</p> <p>If we see the light we receive from such distant sources as somehow fundamentally uncertain and "bundled" in such a way as it would be impossible to tell if the light we get came from actual source, A, B, C, D....N from the distant galaxy, or from all the sources simultaneously, then all we really know is a part of the light that is averaged out from the entire galaxy of stars, whatever its state of original transmission. In a sense we see such a distant galaxy as a single entity, not as a composite distribution of different entities.</p> <p>What ever is happening to remote galaxies in terms of Doppler effects, is happening to each system in a uniform manner and as a whole system, however complex that system really is, and always relative to our own vantage point. If it is expansion of the space-time manifold in the intervening light-years, then it is an expansion that has affected the entire system as a whole and all systems in an equivalent way relative to the earth.</p> <p>Going back to our previous diagram showing different systems in different shells of light, a cosmic egg hypothesis only makes sense if we hypothesize the "shell of light" model. If we hypothesize such a shell of light model, then we must accept the possibility that we are unable to observe the entire universe from our own relative shell of observability, even if what we appear to be observing is the expansion of the space-time manifold in intergalactic space. This would mean that we could not infer a cosmic egg for the total universe based upon our own limited sphere of observation alone, unless the entire universe existed within the same sphere of observation. In fact, a single sphere of observation would be impossible for a universe unless all light came from a single source and returned only to that source, and no other. In effect, all space-time would have emerged from a single origin point, and all light immanent would be from this single point, defining a cosmic sphere. Like an expanding balloon, at any one instant, all entities would be equidistant from the common point of origin, but this would not be directly evident from earth. In other words, the shell of light itself would be expanding as a function of time.</p> <p>The expanding balloon metaphor is a good analogical model for conceptualizing this kind of cosmological process:</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht24.gif" width="567" height="337"></p> <p> </p> <p>According to this model, all observable universe would be constrained within a tunnel continuum that would have some hypothetical curvature or surface form. The deeper in space we peer, the deeper in time we go back, no matter which direction we look, to a point that we come, in all directions to a common cosmic event, a beginning. We can never see outside or beyond this tunnel continuum, no matter how deep it is, and we can never be able to see the entire inferable universe. From what we can observe at any point in the past, we can infer that our own system existed at that degree of proximity to the origin, to the point of the origin itself. The paradox of this seems to me, that if we were ourselves at the origin, then the light emitted at that time, at the time of the original cosmic event, would have already passed us by, or would have cycled past us in repeated cycles. The paradox of this is that if the light we are receiving came omni-directionally from a common origin, then we ourselves or whatever existed before us would have occurred at that origin at the time of its origination. This light would be long lost to our field of view.</p> <p>If the original light existed in its original sphere, and cycled back upon itself in some long arc, it should be expected to return to the origin of its propagation eventually. At that point, we would no longer exist at the origin, hence we could never observe the light emanating from its source. Such a viewpoint cannot resolve the basic contradiction of never being able to see the original light of the moment of original creation, from our vantage point, and every other possible vantage point in the universe, would have been a fundamental part of that creation event. The light might cycle in a great sphere, but by the time it reached its point of origin, we would not longer be at the point to observe it.</p> <p>This suggests a kind of tunnel vision of cosmological worldview associated with big bang/cosmic egg models.</p> <p>A more realistic alternative model is suggested below. The universe may be expanding, but without necessarily postulating a cosmic egg. Light is not curving inwardly in never-ending spheres upon itself, but outwardly to take in ever-greater compasses of space in time. Thus, as we are looking deeply into space, <u>in any one direction,</u> we are not just looking at a narrow expanse of space, but at greater and greater expanses. We are capable, in any given field of view, of taking in increasing expanses of space-time in an ever-increasing compass.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht25.gif" width="663" height="300"></p> <p> </p> <p>In this model, if we looked in any given direction, we would have a similar paradox of long distance parallax of the light we receive. At increasing distances, light would be increasingly indeterminate. There would be some hypothetical center of focus of our field of view, depending upon our resolving capabilities, and, if our universe was expanding, we would hypothetically find the origin point. But its light would be unavailable to us as the tunnel of occlusion would represent all that light that happened before us of which we were ourselves historically a part. Thus, with increasing distance, our field of view would come to take a central focus that represented a growing ring that we construe as a center. From our current vantage-point, we would be inherently unable to tell the exact or absolute location of the distant object, except that we could know its relative location based upon what surrounded it. We would see one object, but we would be unable to tell its exact location in the whole universe relative to ourselves. We would still be unable fundamentally to see our origin point if we hypothesized a cosmic egg. We could turn this model inside out, and see ourselves at the center of our observational universe, if not of the inferable universe.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht26.gif" width="558" height="357"></p> <p> </p> <p>In the conventional Euclidean view above, we can look out in any direction from the earth and see evidence of a universe that is 20 billion light years old. We cannot assume that what we are seeing is an observational sphere 40 billion light years in diameter, though it may be. If we assume the current universe is expanding and has been expanding continuously, we cannot know the exact disposition or size of the current universe. Nor can we tell exactly its size or distribution completely 20 billion light years away, unless we can be sure that our observations from that distance are coherent and un-occluded by distance. If we were in an expanding universe and closed universe, then we would return to a tunnel vision of the universe as in the first model, and the outside perimeter would be only an illusion of actually a small, vanishing origin point. If we assumed an expanding but open universe, then we would exist in a model as in the second diagram, in which our own observability of it origin would be fundamentally occluded by light. If the universe were in a steady state without expansion or contraction, then we could assume that twenty billion years ago it was more or less the same size as now. Then we could use geometry and trigonometry to determine the relative size and distribution of the observable universe 20 billion years past.</p> <p>The paradox of the big bang is something like this. If we are looking at light 16 to 20 billion years old, and from this we are inferring the cosmic event of our own system, our own system was a part of that event we would be observing 20 million years ago. But if this system were a part of that event twenty million years ago, then it could not also be observing that same event 20 million years later, unless we assume that light travels in great circles. But if it travels in great circles, and we are ourselves expanding away from the origin, then the light originating 20 million years ago would no longer reach us. If we could see the event after our own expansion, then light would not be traveling in great circles. If Light were not traveling in great circles, then we could not see the origin event anyway.</p> <p>Looking deep in space is like looking into a deep well. The deeper we go, the less we are able to tell the exact size of the dimensions of what we are observing:</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht27.gif" width="519" height="251"></p> <p> </p> <p>If we think we are seeing at some depth a cosmic egg, then we must conjecture that light is curving inwardly at some point in a near perfectly uniform way. But this viewpoint does not seem compatible with an observation of galactic recession at these vast distances. Such galactic recession would seem to suggest a different kind of outward curvature of light, and a vaster universe in great distances that one that we can conjecture based on a linear form of light. Is it possible that the red shift of light received from such distances is in fact the product of such curvature of light in space, yielding the appearance of galactic recession at increasing distances? It appears that the red shift does not necessarily conform to expectations of a cosmic egg implied by a hot big bang model. The appearance of red shift might suggest a deeper universe that is actually larger than we might otherwise have expected, implying greater distances in a non-linear fashion with greater depth of our field of view.</p> <p>In fact, I doubt recession can be used to explain red shift of light. The propagation of light is independent of its source except in a gravitational sense of an Einstein shift. Light is self-propagating through spime, hence, the speed and momentum of an object is independent of its propagation.</p> <p>The model of light curvature suggests what I will call an observationally spiraling universe, one that is opening outwardly. This is an observational sphere of the universe, but the curvature of light is due to the space-time construct, suggesting that the universe itself is spiraling in some larger frame of reference. We can depict this as below:</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht28.gif" width="654" height="347"></p> <p> </p> <p>The cosmology of the observational universe appears to be spiraling, suggesting that light is not only curving, but also slowly twisting through space-time. If we were to conjecture about the shape of the contemporaneous universe in an orthogonal projection, it would suggest that the large structure of the universe is flowing in some directional pattern in some larger frame of reference.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht29.gif" width="644" height="299"></p> <p> </p> <p>We must conjecture that this flow is a huge spiral motion in a larger frame of reference. Light emanating from any given observational plane of focus from this universe would twist away from it in all directions. This twisting motion would be within the spime matrix that is turning, but would assume a trajectory pattern that would be independent of the current or previous state of motion of the universe. It describes a larger pattern of an inferable universe in which the spime matrix is flowing in some general direction in time, suggesting non-isotropy of structure. We must hypothesize a basic set of principles:</p> <p>1. Light is self-propagating in the spime matrix. Its state trajectory is relative only to the current spime matrix in which it is propagating.</p> <p>2. The propagation of light is therefore directionally independent of its source, such that whatever direction an object is moving, at whatever velocity, light will always propagate away from it in omni-directionally uniform ways.</p> <p>3. Red shift is therefore a property of the complex curvature of light in space-time, and describes the structure of the space-time manifold.</p> <p>4. Light will exhibit an Einstein shift from its gravitational source, but this will be fairly omni-directionally uniform to the shape of the gravitational field, and it will exhibit the shift upon the entire spectrum of light in a uniform way as this occurs in space-time.</p> <p>If this is correct, then we can conjecture that no mass object may obtain the speed of light because it would violate a basic principle of its own integrity based upon gravitational unification. We can think of a black hole as an object that has attained the speed of light in all directions, or the equivalent of this.</p> <p>We might perhaps only estimate some larger focal region of such twisting by means of being able to estimate the differential curvature of light we receive from different directions. If twisting curvature is evidenced by the red shift of light, then it might be possible to compare the spectral patterns from different sources to gain this knowledge. We cannot construe directly the structure of the larger universe from our own earthbound frame of reference, because the greatest likelihood is that we are not at the center of this structure. Therefore, any cosmological model that implicitly puts us at the center of a non-observational universe is wrong. In other words, the inferable universe cannot be directly projected from the observational sphere.</p> <p>The paradox of this cosmological model is that if we exist in some larger formation that is twisting, then there must be some central region or vortex that is gravitationally defined in an even larger frame of reference. We must first see this entire system as translating through time contemporaneously. It would kind of define a twisting rope that is composed of many fibers of gravitational systems.</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht30.gif" width="428" height="229"></p> <p>The difficulty of imagining this is that if the universe is infinite, as would be suggested by our model of an open observational sphere, then whatever twisting or spiraling we are observing, would suggest some centered control system of a larger universe. It would suggest as well that there must be multiple such "twisted" ropes co-occurring simultaneously within a larger field structure. It is indeed difficult to imagine a twisting, spiraling structure of the inferable universe, and then to conjecture upon an infinite number of such systems. For instance, we could not know if time flowed in the same direction in these different "sub universes" or in different directions, as would be connoted by the turning of the main arrows.</p> <p>As an interpretation of our observational universe, this seems to be a more consistent explanation than the big bang model. It would imply as well an open and therefore infinite universe. It would also be consistent with the view that the positive curvature of light is a relative phenomenon occurring in the vast depths of intergalactic space. This is indicative of the "self-expansive" effects of the spime matrix, just as light has been demonstrated to have a negative curvature in relation to the sun's surface. It is inherently positive curvature because of the outward field lines of the curvature of space-time in these regions. This conjecture alone is enough to permanently put to rest the Big Bang.</p> <p>We can see this phenomena really as a kind of universal gravitational lens that bends the light in consistent ways, and stretching it out in the process, suggesting also that light propagates in variable transition pathways through different regions of spime matrix. We get a similar effect of our view of the vast depths of space anywhere we look in the night time sky, as if we were looking at the entire world through a large wide-angle lense that made everything from far away appear smaller and more distant than they really were, and the entire field of view wider than it really was. This same lens, that exists as an invisible and mysterious shroud of "negative spime" in the vast regions of intergalactic space, also acts as a filter that tends to catch and cancel out diffuse or any incidental light created through interference patterns. This filter effect is sufficient to create the darkness of the regions of space and the point-like effect of distant starlight. Space-time appears almost as a perfect kind of diffraction grating.</p> <p>We must conclude that observationally speaking, the cosmic egg would be an impossible event to observe, its wave-front have long since passed our point of observation, or else it could not have occurred in the way that we conjecture. If light circles around in infinite circles in a closed universe, such that from our vantage point we can see not only the total universe, but the total history of the universe in time, then it is possible to reconcile this kind of contradiction. But this seems highly implausible. Such a model only compounds contradictions with other contradictions.</p> <p>Even in such a case, if light were relatively uniform and straight, then we should see the cosmic egg not as everywhere surrounding us at some focal distance, but as always at the center point of everywhere we look, as a bright, blinding light. It would be everywhere surrounded by darkness. This seems highly implausible and counter-intuitive. Then and only then could we logically hypothesize an observable cosmic egg event. But if such a universe were expanding, the circles of light it is contained within would also be expanding as much as well.</p> <p>I will speculate upon the following observational inferences. If light is nearly straight in the long run, or even positively curved, then if it traveled 16 billion light years, it has stretched a distance almost that far. It means that the observable universe is at least of a radius from us as the source to that point of emission of the light, which would be 32 billion light years. If the light emitted from the source of the light traveled 16 billion years in our direction, it traveled 16 billion light years in the opposite direction as well. We can infer from this some absolute Euclidean distance based upon a Pythagorean difference. If it traveled in the opposite direction, then light could have traveled an equal distance in the opposite direction from ourselves. We suddenly have a universe that, based on the observation of one ray of light from 16 billion light-years, that is at least 64 billion light years in diameter. If this hypothetical universe is at least 64 billion light years in diameter, then we can conjecture that any light traveling from the original source on one side of us, will eventually reach the source in another 32 billion years on our opposite side. If it did so, then it will have traveled at least 64 billion light years in the opposite direction at the same time. And we can say that if light from one side of our observational sphere can do this, it can do the same thing from the other side at the same time. We then have an inferable universe that has suddenly expanded to 192 billion light years in diameter. We must repeat our inferences over again--we quickly approach infinity.</p> <p>We can see that an inferential sphere of such an open observable universe is infinitely expandable, by a diagram as follows:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht31.gif" width="635" height="239"></p> <p> </p> <p>If we can infer an open universe based upon our current observational sphere, then we must conclude some other things about our universe:</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. The larger our sphere of inference, the less plausible a Big Bang or Cosmic Egg become.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">a. The larger our observational sphere is found to be, the larger our sphere of inference can be assumed to be.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">b. The larger our observational sphere, the more linear light/space-time can be assumed to be.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. If we can deduce a very large sphere of inference based upon induction from our enlargeable sphere of observation, then we must assume that the Universe is at least as old as it is large.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">a. If we can assume an infinitely large inference sphere, we can assume an eternal universe.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. If we can assume an infinitely large and eternal universe, then we can conclude that the universe is:</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">a. Open in some fundamental sense.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">b. Non-zero state.</p> <p>All of this speculation hinges of course upon our conceptualization of space-time and the larger properties of light in space-time. If we assume the principle of universal congruence, light appears relatively uniform and relatively linear in the universe. According to our spime mechanical theory, if it adopts non-linear patterns in the long run, which is to be expected, this non-linearity of its state-trajectory is not intrinsic to the property of light itself, but is the result of its interaction in its medium of transmission.</p> <p>There is no doubt that when we look deep and deeper into all regions of the nighttime sky, we are looking into the cosmological history of the observable universe. The question that remains unanswered is whether or not we are not also looking at an extensive universe as well. It seems logical that if we see apparent acceleration of recession of galaxies in deep space history, we must conclude that we are seeing the reverse process of what is currently happening. What is apparent recession of galaxies at the limits of our field of view, is evidence of our own deceleration. We cannot hypothesize a cosmic egg and an extensive universe in the same observational field of view. Again, all this depends upon our estimation of the properties of light in space-time.</p> <p>What seems most indubitable and most likely, is that we cannot see at one time the entire universe either in its exact current disposition or in any previous disposition. Strictly speaking, the inferable universe would be "observable" if our basic observational restrictions that physically relativizes our point of view were removed somehow. In fact, it is likely that we cannot even observe most of the universe, either contemporaneously or anytime in the past. And even from our observational standpoint, what we can observe is perhaps only in fact a very small or residual percentage of the light produced from their respective sources, such that we have really only a very feint image of even the observable universe. Still, the apparent coherence and integrity of light even from very distant sources is remarkable, and speaks of a remarkable congruence.</p> <p>No matter what the relativistic strangeness underlying normal space and time, if we apply the universal congruity principle based upon our own observational sphere, it becomes difficult to imagine some finite wall in the depths of space, beyond which we cannot see or pass. It is even more incredible to assume some wall of finite dimensions. The deeper space becomes, the more and more remote the possibility for such a universal wall becomes. The only wall we must then overcome is the wall imposed by our own ignorance and lack of imagination.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>These kinds of inferences are based on the following presuppositions:</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. Light travels linearly in perfect void without interruption.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. Light is always emitted omni-directionally from some solar source.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. Great distance in light years is an indication of both great depth of time and great spatial distance.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">4. The hypothetical curvature of space-time is either effectively flat, or else omni-directionally curved in such a way as to be self-neutralizing, or open.</p> <p>It is not clear, if we hypothesize either that light travels in long low arcs, or that space-time is fundamentally curved in some uniform way, that all light travels in arcs that turn in the same direction, or that all space-time curves in the same direction everywhere.</p> <p>A cosmic egg model demands a closed space-time construct based upon the curvature of space-time in an almost perfect spherical form. This is not plausible, and leads to insuperable contradictions.</p> <p>Light appears mostly linear, if not perfectly so. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that in spite of any purported dynamic curvature of space-time, it travels approximately the distances of its age. If it does so, it puts a certain vast dimensionality of the universe at ever-greater depths of observation. If this great depth of observation appears more rapidly recessional, implying even greater expanses, then this both contradicts what we would deductively expect of a cosmic egg and it also suggests an open-state universe.</p> <p>In our consideration of cosmological structure based upon the observational sphere presented to us by light, we must understand that at each moment, the total available observational sphere is immediately apprehensible for that instant, or what can be called the immediately instantaneous observational sphere of our universe. Thus, we can find embedded in any picture of the cosmos, in any direction, enough light information as to discover, if we knew what we were looking for, the cosmological structure of the universe in is most essential form. The trouble is that we do not really know what we are looking at, and we probably lack the observational instruments to allow us to see clearly what this patterning may be.</p> <p>At any one instant, we receive light as an integrated system, as an incoming spherical wave, that contains the combined information of light from the total observable universe. The trouble is that we cannot clearly separate questions of depth of focus, in terms of both time and space, from breadth of focus.</p> <p>With increasing depth and breadth, we can speculate that there is a corresponding increase in the convergence of light from different depths and breadths. Like interference patterns of resonance spin amplification of nuclei, it may be difficult in our composite view of light to tell the exact organizational distribution of the universe. We can picture this from the following:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR5.ht32.gif" width="663" height="270"></p> <p>We can understand that how we observe and model the universe is based very much on how we understand the interactions of light. The conventional view of light would render a sense of an immediate directional vector, as represented by the first observational plane above. Even if such a conventional model holds approximately for our observational sphere, it still entails an intrinsic difficulty of its orthogonal projection from a three-dimensional to two dimensional distribution patterns. If we understand light to cohere in space-time as a complex system, as an instantaneous wave-front, and we hypothesize some kind of curvature or distortion of light occurring in its traverse of intergalactic space, then we end up with an even possibly more confusing picture. The distortion of light may be relatively uniform, or it may in fact be quite chaotic, especially as a function of very long distance propagation. We cannot know how it works exactly at our present state of knowledge. Even greater distortion may be apparent, if we consider the possibility that in the systematic unification of light, there is increasing convergence between sources of light such that it becomes, as in a kind of Heisenbergian uncertainty writ large, virtually impossible to separate light as to its source. In other words, the intervening space-time construct might serve, in the structure of the long run, as a kind of diffraction grating.</p> <p>This is depicted on the following page:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR5.ht33.gif" width="558" height="193"></p> <p> </p> <p>We can see two processes possibly occurring simultaneously in the long distance integration of light, such that not only is there curvature, but there might also be a kind of diffractive integration or convergence of light from different sources. In such an integration, in the longest term imaginable, it is possible that all light from all sources becomes fully integrated as a single system. It seems, in such a model, even if the effect appears very slight and negligible, that there would be an intrinsic tradeoff in the propagation of light, between distance and intensity, and coherence and convergence. I would not necessarily call such convergence necessarily interference in the way this is normally construed. It may involve some form of destructive interference, but it would also involve some kind of constructive pattern of integration as well. We can possibly picture the trade off in light in the following way:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR5.ht34.gif" width="548" height="222"></p> <p>We can see that light propagating from the source would evince characteristic values simultaneously. The arrow in each of the quadrants would represent the same source of light. It is possible to develop a kind of equation that relates to this, which we can hypothetically define in the following way:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">(V/D + I/C + I/D + V/C)/4 = 1<sub>L</p> </sub> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">Where V equals convergence</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">D equals distance</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">I equals intensity</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">C equals coherence</p> <p>In such a formula, convergence and coherence remain unknown values or entities, though distance and intensity can be measured in some approximate way. We do not really know the degree to which convergence or curvature of light might be a function of its propagation through space-time. The paradox seems to be that there is retained a central sense of "two-dimensional" coherence of light regardless of the intervening factors that may influence this coherence.</p> <p>Light that we receive as a system has its own independent sense of coherence that is not directly attributable to its source. It retains coherence that is a product of its source, but it achieves also a form of intermediary coherence that is a function of its passage through space-time as well. It is likely that energy, in all its forms, interacts with spime on a very basic level that we do not see. All light that we see will have interacted in such a way, albeit in some differential and partial manner. With increasing distance, the amount of this kind of interaction should increase proportionately.</p> <p>This represents a form of Heisenbergian uncertainty that would be inherent to light. It is the overall integrity of light pattern that is retained to apparently infinite distances which is remarkable. In a sense, the whole energy continuum of the universe is a constant pattern of change dynamics.</p> <p>We might speculate on something like the following:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-left: 0; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. The Universe is almost as large in absolute distance as its sphere of energy that it emits and that contains it.</p> <u> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-left: 0; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. The total sphere of energy of the universe is propagating infinitely.</p> </u> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-left: 0; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. The total universe is therefore infinite.</p> <p>Furthermore, to the extent that this universal sphere of energy is theoretically observable, it entails that the total universe it contains is also observable, at least hypothetically.</p> <p>One spin off of this consideration is to consider any energy system as subject to the laws of thermodynamics. The universe would represent an infinite energy reservoir. Because all systems are thermodynamic. They all lose energy entropically to the larger reservoir. We can conclude that the total reservoir is infinite, otherwise a point would be reached where energy could no longer escape, because it would have nowhere to escape to--i.e., no larger thermal reservoir it is contained within.</p> <p>The total energy sphere of the universe constitutes its own mechanical system of interaction that occurs within a four-dimensional dynamic change continuum. We can refer to the energy system as a comprehensive construct that constitutes its own stratified level of informational patterning in the universe. The challenge is in attempting to understand the capacity of the universe to maintain multiple levels of informational patterning at several levels, and possibly, in a reductionist sense, infinitely.</p> <p>The energy system constitutes an integrated energy field, and we can understand a unified field theory as being inherent to this energy field. So far, according to our model, we have the following main stratified levels of such a system:</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht35.gif" width="338" height="251"></p> <p> </p> <p>It is apparent that change events are occurring simultaneously upon all levels, though we only observe the effects of the upper levels. It is apparent that if space-time as we experience this relativistically is only a function of the positive state universe, then the universe upon more fundamental levels appears very different, and that we can only conceptualize of the total inferable universe upon the bottom most level as instantaneously co-occurring.</p> <p>According to this model, the universe constitutes a dynamic change continuum that appears stratified on multiple levels simultaneously, and there is conjectured to be significant interactions occurring between the levels. It is apparent that there are principles of change dynamics occurring at each level, setting constraints upon that level. These constraints, as for instance Absolute Zero and the speed of light for energy systems, and all systems are energy systems, set limits to the expression of any system as an energy system, and hence constrain critically the entire <u>system at that level of expression</u>. But it is not clear that the constraints applying to one level, and hence indirectly to the entire system, applies in the same way to the other levels.</p> <p>We must speculate about the nature of the energy field within the universe. As a possibilistic field, it is a continuum without any discrete boundaries. It is inherently unified in a self-consistent way, and yet it is composed of a lower level of organizational information, and yet composes a higher level of mass bound objects that appears to be discontinuous in a spatio-temporal sense. In other words, in any given area at any given instant, can light said to be a even field, uniform in its pattern, or is it possible that there is some kind of "empty space" that interpenetrates this field.</p> <p>One aspect of this consideration is to realize that in the universe, all light from all directions of the universe intersects the same spaces simultaneously. This yields an interesting paradox about light as an information system. Light or energy must have some inherent capacity or limit of "instantaneous volume" such that, no matter how many sources, they share this total volume in a proportionate way such that it is distributed. We may represent this in something like the following depiction:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR5.ht36.gif" width="567" height="229"></p> <p> </p> <p>In this kind of diagram, we can imagine an infinite amount of light converging from an infinite universe upon a common source. We have a variety of Olber's paradox. We can imagine that in any particular reference area in the universe, there is an infinite amount of light information converging upon that point. At any point in the universe, the observational sphere ought to appear infinitely bright, and yet it doesn't. Just the reverse, it appears infinitely dark, except for the points of light that recede in darkness by degrees.</p> <p>At the same time, we can conjecture that an infinite amount of light converges on the common reference point simultaneously, but in infinitely diminishing degrees.</p> <p>The light that converges upon that common reference point would intersect, and then pass the other direction. In such a way, light at any point in its pathway of propagation, exhibits an infinite degree of convergence with all other instantaneous light in the universe. How can we explain this kind of phenomena?</p> <p>We may speculate upon the following kind of equation:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">(V<sub>1</sub> + V<sub>2</sub> + V<sub>3</sub> + V<sub>4</sub> + V<sub>5</sub> + V<sub>6</sub> + V<sub>n</sub> .....)<sub> </sub>= 1</p> <p>One way of looking at this, is to take a reverse diagram. Considering any infinitely small point that represents an instantaneous moment, we can imagine an infinite number of vectors emerging from the same origin in infinite space:</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht37.gif" width="270" height="242"></p> <p> </p> <p>Such a Mandala shaped diagram can represent any light bulb or solar system. We must note that not only is light spread in an infinite number of vectors from the origin of the source, but from any point on its surface, there are an infinite number of vectors of light emanent from that point. We can only understand this paradox about light if we see it as an integrated continuum, and not as a point-vector phenomenon.</p> <p>We can speculate that for any given point of observation of a given object at any given distance, there will be an infinite number of vectors converging upon that point from the object. Even if the object is very far away, there will be a diminishing area represented by the object within which an infinite number of point vectors can be described for the light system.</p> <p>We can picture such a system in the following diagram:</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht38.gif" width="606" height="346"></p> <p> </p> <p>We can say in this conceptualization of light systems, that there can be no vanishing point of either transmission or reception of light, except as a function of distance. Light therefore is usually emitted from a source, most frequently one that is approximately spherical, of some size. We can say that for any given vanishing point on the surface, there is an infinite number of possible light vectors emanate from that point. Between any two distant objects, therefore, one that is the source and the other the receiver, of any given relative size, at any given distance, there will always be an infinite number of possible vectorial points and instantaneous pathways describable between the two objects at any given instant. If we consider that an instant is by definition instantly, or diminishingly, small--every instant is a vanishing point, then we are faced with a strange paradox.</p> <p>We must understand this principle of energy integration in spime as forming a continuum at any given point. It is not only that the photons available, the number of photons, and their given size and frequency, determine their intensity in an additive sense, at any given instant should in theory be finite. The photons, as quantum particles with non-discrete properties, cannot define their exact location at any given instant without sacrificing their field integrity. They yield their particularity of structure and property within a field in order to constitute the field as a continuous whole.</p> <p>Furthermore, any given area of intersection, versus some vanishing point of intersection, must comprise an infinite number of points of possible intersection, and, as a three dimensional area, comprises a solid volume of time. It is an entity that must endure within a given interval of time, no matter how small this interval may be. In this, if we consider the energy dynamics of solid mass objects, particularly very large and dense objects, we can understand that within their mass they represent a concentration of time, and energy, that is much greater than its equivalent in "empty" space-time.</p> <p>From this we can conclude that gravitation for such an entity is greater, because the requirements of spime integration are greater. Spime integration underlies and accounts for Energy integration, and arises as an important conception. We might refer to gravitation as the measure of time, or the "temperature" of an energy system, that would be required for a single photon of energy to traverse the distance from the entry point to the exit point of the system, passing through its center most region. A dense and large mass-object would behave in precisely the same way as if it were proportionate to a huge volume of space-time through which an equivalent amount of energy had to pass.</p> <p>Any volume of spime therefore is an entity that exists in four dimensions as a function of both space and time. In a perfectly spherical object, any energy traversing the system and passing through the center point must require an equal amount of time for its passage, regardless of the direction of its entrance and exit into the shared space.</p> <p>Such a transmission field is continuously dynamic in interesting ways. If we add more light from any given direction, or any number of different directions, to the same system, then we do not influence the net area of the system, only possible its net intensity. If areas in space receive virtually an infinite amount of energy omni-directionally from the universe, then we should expect an infinite increase in total or net amount of energy. This is impossible, and therefore, we must hypothesize that for any given area and shape and kind of spime, there is some net value which represents the composite shared volume of all light incidental to that area at any given instant or for any given period of time. This volume is independent of the intensity and frequency of light. The intensity of light in any given area at any given moment describes the relative density or diffuseness of light in that area, as realizable photonic transmissions, but it does not describe the continuous value of that volume as a coherent and integrated light system for that moment. As a coherent light system, there is no limit of the number of realizable photons that can pass through that area simultaneously. The relative intensity of the energy in that system will be minimally affected by the gravitational system that characterize that same area, but it is not clear that the gravitation of the area will in turn be affected by the energy occurring within it momentarily. Energy as electromagnetic radiation appears to be fundamentally independent of gravitational energy that characterizes the same complex system.</p> <p>In other words, any given volume of spime, whether internal or external, represents a complex stratified set of simultaneous energy systems that occur in a parallel manner to one another in the same area. We might say that time itself, in the area, unfolds in complex ways simultaneously.</p> <p>It is the coherence of the energy systems, and its inherent complexity, in any given area, regardless of its relative diffuseness or intensity, that is of greatest theoretical interest in explaining. We may hypothesize an upper and lower dynamic limit. We know that we cannot have an absolute void or emptiness in any system in reality. Such a condition would represent absolute zero. Therefore, we can state condition one:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">1. There is no area of spime that is without some minimally integrated energy system. In other words, entropic systems must be infinite systems.</p> <p>At the other extreme, we can state that no area of spime can, as a coherent area, travel simultaneously at light speed. In other words, two different instantaneous points within such a system cannot occur at the same moment as a function of the same wave front of light. Another way of saying this is that light that enters the system, cannot enter the system at the same moment that it exits the system, unless the system were infinitely small. Thus we can imagine the limit imposed on any three dimensional mass object in attempting to attain the speed of light. This would be the speed at which the entire object would be simultaneously translated into energy, such that any point would instantaneously propagate simultaneously with any other point in the system.</p> <p>We may say that temporality is an intrinsic characteristic of light that defines its continuous expression and instantiation. In other words, light cannot exist as a single vanishing point, but only as a temporally defined system. No mass based system can travel the speed of light, for as a system it would lose its temporally defining characteristics as a coherent system. The system would vanish.</p> <p>I believe this is the equivalent to saying that an infinite amount of light passes through the same vanishing point in spime at the same instant. Light-speed as a universal constant applicable to known forms of energy defines the limit at which the amount of energy may simultaneously be realized at a given point or in a given area at any given moment.</p> <p>If we see any given area of space-time, no matter how large or small, as equivalent to some amount of a mass-object or piece of matter, in proportion, then we can see how the total area cannot travel instantaneously at the speed of light. Any given light entering the area, as a system, would never exit the system. No light could either enter or exit the system, hence the system would be non-thermodynamic or static. We know this to be impossible except in the case of black holes.</p> <p>Another way of looking at this phenomena, I believe, is to state that for any given volume of spime, the entire volume of spime cannot be instantaneously realized as pure energy, as it would require an infinite amount of energy to achieve this simultaneous point realization. Thus, the speed of light apparently defines an upper boundary for the 4 dimensional expression of energy systems, and all systems in the universe, at least at one one level, are thermodynamic energy systems. Black holes are an example of this.</p> <p>Thus there in fact seems to be an upper limit to the amount of energy containable within a given area simultaneously. This upper limit seems to be definable by the speed of light, by the following kind of formula applicable to any given perfect sphere of uniform empty spime of radius r:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">e = (4/3<font FACE="Times New Roman">πr</font><sup>3</sup>)c = mc<sup>2</p> </sup> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">Hence,</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">m = (4/3<font FACE="Times New Roman">πr</font><sup>3</sup>)/c</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>We can consider that any given volume of empty spime is equivalent to a certain amount of mass.</p> <p>We can expect that destructive interference of light should increase with increasing amounts of light from different sources, and that, if light converges from opposite sources at sufficient intensity, then electrons and positrons should be produced from its interactions as a system.</p> <p>If no area of the physical universe can exist devoid of energy, and no area of the physical universe can contain an amount of energy in excess the limit stated above, then it follows that all areas have some energy system that is continuous within the min-max limits.</p> <p>Another way of stating these minimum and maximum limitations to physical reality as an expression of an energy system is to say that there can be no perfectly isolated or closed system, from which energy cannot escape or into which energy cannot enter. We can only imagine such a perfectly sealed system as an abstraction. Thus, whatever area or system we are defining in terms of its energy dynamics, we must understand that this system is part of some larger energy system, and the total energy system is infinite and all encompassing. Therefore, no subsystem can be without some minimal amount of energy within it.</p> <p>Some minimal and minimally integrated energy system is intrinsic to the definition of spime, as a positive phenomenon, and this energy system sets limits to the realization and articulation of space-time. In other words, spime as it occurs normally in some positive state in the universe, must have some minimal amount of energy or self-energy expressed within the system. In the positive universe, there can be no negative energy states without a positive complement.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>The conjecture above about the independent self-propagation of light brings us a kind of paradox. Imagine an object that is traveling in one direction at the speed of light:</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht39.gif" width="644" height="233"></p> <p> </p> <p>In this system, if light as a propagational system is affected by the motion of the object emitting it, then, in theory, we should not be able to see the object from either observational points A or B. The object may have a fundamentally different appearance from either observational pints D and C. No light could be emitted from such an object in either forward or reverse direction, and there would be a wall of visibility that would have some shape around it.</p> <p>We can demonstrate though, that at whatever speed, the wave front of light moving in reverse direction will move at its own constant speed regardless of the speed of its source. The object would be translating contemporaneously with its "forward" wave front, such that in one second, its exact disposition would be where its light reached in that second. The light emitted in the reverse direction at the instant of the previous second, would be traveling from this reference point regardless of the exact disposition of the object at the current point:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht40.gif" width="548" height="158"></p> <p> </p> <p>In other words, light being emitted at that instant will travel equidistant in a second in an observational field the radius of one light second. It will not be affected by the subsequent motion of the object at any subsequent instant. There should be no observed red shift of light. If such an object were moving forward, then its approach should be invisible, but its recession visible in a normal way. We could not see the light bullet that hits us until it hits us. We can say that light as a system of propagation, is independent of its source of emission at the instant of its emission. Another way of looking at this is to understand that the object moving at a high speed in its own internal gravitational frame of reference, is behaving as if normal--nothing has changed internally within the relative system. At each instant of its emission of light, this emission pattern is internally unaltered and unaffected by its speed in a larger frame of reference, and light as a system of propagation, moves away from the object at each instant independent of the system that produced it. We therefore can conclude that we cannot depend upon the coherence of light itself to tell us of the relative properties of a motional system in a larger frame of reference.</p> <p>We can also say that the light received will be in its properties independent of the motion of the receiver as well.</p> <p>If this is correct, it seems reasonable to conclude that the observed red shift of light is to be understood in some other way. The best candidate is an Einstein shift, but this suggests gravitational fields of enormous strength for very distant galaxies. The Doppler effect can only be assumed if there was a slowing down of all periodic processes of the system as a result of its velocity. It would be a variant of the Einstein shift. All light emitted from such an object would be shifted. The trouble is that this would imply directionality of the object, and we could not assume what that directionality would be based upon the information we receive in light.</p> <p>The only other explanation is the affect of space-time upon the propagational system of light itself as it traverses the universe. This has to be explained in terms of a consistent and continuous "frame shifting" of light that is only apparent over very vast distances. The frame shifting occurring is happening to the entire light system, not just to a portion of it. This describes light as a non-linear system. It is the result of the growing displacement of the light field held at a constant speed, in which any vibrating system would lengthen in its frequency with the loss of the elastic restoring force of the light field in relation to its displacement over very great distances.</p> <p>What it describes is a "loss of energy" of the entire system in a continuous way, such that the system becomes gradually shifted. We can understand this if we can see that the system is always minimally coherent and unified. In other words, we can postulate a kind of systemic convergence of light. We cannot say that the point loss of photons will effect any part of the spectrum, but affects the system as a whole such that the entire system will frame shift with continuous shedding of its photonic elements. Another way of looking at this is to say that in a unified propagation system, each individual photon gives up its discrete identity for the coherence of the entire field. Therefore, the loss of each photon as a particularistic entity does not leave "holes" in the field, but affects the coherence of the field in consistent ways. We can predict that it becomes increasingly incoherent as a system, similar to the diffusion of light, and it also experiences a loss of momentum or inertia of energy, as a result of its componential depletion.</p> <p>We can see that a photon of light approximates this in most senses, except that hypothetically, a single photon always retains one exact direction, based on the degrees from its origination. This directional value of a photon cannot be infinitesimally small, but it must have some discrete value, such that its long-distance propagation results in a cone of dispersion of an exact size that is a function of its distance. The cone of dispersion would define the limit of inherent directional uncertainty of a photon of light in its propagation through "empty" space.</p> <p>A beam of light would strike anywhere within the cone at a given distance within equal probability. Also, it might be stated that it has an infinitely great possibility of not striking the center of the cone of dispersion versus the complement of the center. We can see that perhaps light naturally curves, and not only curves, but naturally fluctuates in its trajectory pathway over the long term. Light that is infinitely old, or that approaches very old age, would tend to fluctuate with increasing instability. Over the long term, the trajectory of light would not only be curvilinear, but non-linear.</p> <p>Over very long distances, this cone of dispersion would translate into a Heisenbergian field of uncertainty that would grow larger and larger as a function of the diminishing of the energy potential of the light point itself. We can hypothesize that light will not only become inherently uncertain over the long range, but it will exhibit another property that would be related to its intrinsic stretching out or loss of momentum of energy. Not only would it increase in uncertainty value over distance as a function of its intrinsic cone of dispersion, but it would also increase in temporal-energetic value as a function of time.</p> <p>If we know the diameter of an electron at the moment of its propagation of a photon, then we might be able to guess the inherent limit of the cone of dispersion. This would introduce an inherent form of Heisenbergian uncertainty to forms of energy in their extended propagation. It is possible to see red shift over very long distances as the direct consequence of such a phenomenon. It might arrive at a given destination point at an increasingly uncertain time.</p> <p>We can also see that very old light will tend to become non-discrete in terms of its origin. Light would be intrinsically diffuse over the long term, such that all light would eventually become mixed together in a kind of cosmic diffraction grating.</p> <p>Space represents a kind of perfect diffraction grating.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht41.gif" width="596" height="167"></p> <p> </p> <p>Light becomes increasingly uncertain over the long run in both its directional dispersion and in its temporal resonance amplification. In such a way, we can see that Heisenbergian uncertainty may operate in the very small in terms of quantum entities, and in the very large in terms of vibratory wave field lines. There would be thus some built-in threshold that would represent the limit of our observability of the universe in the large, beyond which, we could not be sure of the actual origin of light.</p> <p>This hypothetical phenomenon is not the same thing as the extrinsic diffusion of multiple photons of light from the same or from multiple sources, but the intrinsic diffusion of a single photon of light from one source. It would eventually and increasingly interfere with a photon of light from some other source. Some kind of interference band would be expected in such light as a final outcome and as a function of distance.</p> <p>It suggests that if we could look deep enough into our observable universe, we would eventually reach a point where we could not be certain of exactly where the light was coming from that we would be recording. We may be then able to record a number of alternative sources, or else an indistinct background haze with indistinct forms, no matter how powerful our resolving apparatus. This would not necessarily mean that we met some absolute boundary of discontinuity of the universe in space or time, but it would imply some intrinsic limit or boundary to our observability of the universe.</p> <p>It also suggests that all light will eventually diffuse, over time, as a function of its age, all other things like intervening gravitational fields being equal. Light will naturally find itself lost in a background thermodynamic reservoir, in which interference patterning will become increasingly random and chaotic. Light will cancel itself out in the structure of the long run, and when it does, it must then return to some alternate state.</p> <p>A way of seeing this is that if light were curved, and it never lost its momentum of energy, and it traveled infinitely vast distances in an unaltered state, then it would eventually return untransformed to its point of origin, even if the same transmission mechanism no longer occupied that point or existed. Light continuously and infinitely radiating in all directions, would, it seems, fill the entire background sky with a kind of diffuse light energy that comes from every source and direction simultaneously. It seems to me that we would be seeing a nighttime sky as something fundamentally different in appearance than we do encounter.</p> <p>In this regard, blackbody radiation may be either evidence of decayed light, perhaps being recaptured in the interstitial manifold of space-time, or else it is the radiation emitted as the result of the formation of new nucleonic entities, particularly neutrons. It may in fact be both.</p> <p>We can say that the propagation of light is nearly perfect in the "void" of the universal space-time continuum. We can say that it is 99.99999999% perfect. Yet, that .0000001% of imperfectness about light will, in the structure of the long run, render it increasingly unstable and unpredictable. I believe it to be the case with all energy systems that we know of. Thus its structural patterning will grow increasingly unpredictable as a function of vast distances and very large time intervals. At the same time, its intrinsic, long-term state alternation will determine that it will eventually demise, and return to some other more basic form. I suggest that it returns to some alternate form not all at once, but gradually. Light decays. The question remains then, what does it decay into?</p> <p>In concluding this chapter, it is important to emphasize that the mechanical expansion of the intervening space-time manifold, as predicted by dynamic relativistic cosmologies, cannot be directly explained or predicted by the observed Doppler effect. In other words, recession of galaxies cannot explain directly the omni-directional red shift as seen from the earth, unless this was a variant of the Einstein shift due to the uniform slowing of periodic processes.</p> <p>It is not known if the periodic processes for a moving object would slow down in the direction of recession only. If red shift is the result of expansion, this expansion is directly explainable in terms of the expanding space-time matrix, and hence, of non-linear effects of space-time upon the propagational pathways of otherwise perfect light. If we see light in a non-linear way, we can predict that its path trajectory will follow a rising curve that would explain such red shifting. It would slow down in terms of its intrinsic periodic processes, though its speed would remain constant.</p> <p>We can state that red shift as this is observed in the universe is relative to the slowing of the inherent periodic process in the self propagation of light, and may be explained by any one of the following:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. Einstein shift through gravitation.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. Velocity, the direction of which may not be predictable.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. Space-time expansion.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">4. Non-linear state characteristics of light fields.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">                     5. The combination of any of the above.</p> <p>We may depict the possible non-linear state-trajectory of old natural light in the following way. In this diagram, we can see that light takes "slows" down over the long run, though it cannot change its absolute velocity. It must slow down in terms of its periodic process. In a relativistic sense, light would have further to go to get to the same instantaneous destination.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR5.ht42.gif" width="548" height="145"></p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>In closing this chapter, it is evident that a revised model of a dynamic state universe entails that universal relativity superimposes an absolute spatial and temporal frame upon all natural processes in reality in the total sphere of the universe. Time is relative to the energy system it occurs within, but all systems occur simultaneously at the same time, or instantaneously within a single continuum that is defined in terms of instantaneous space. The universal continuum exists within, and defines in a Machian sense, the absolute space of the universe. All systems approach and seek this isomorphism with this space. Time is an intrinsic and dependent property to the instantaneity of this space. In and of itself, the universal space is without time, or timeless, but all change events and naturally occurring periodic processes are relative to this space, and hence define the relativistic qualities of time. Energy distorts this space, and time is a measure of this distortion about the equilibrium line of universal instantaneity.</p> <hr> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Chapter VI</p> </font><font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Universal Simultaneity & Spime-Continuity</p> </font><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Universal Relativity & the Instantaneous State Universe</p> </font> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p><b><font size="6">I</font></b>t is very difficult to resolve at this time this kind of observational paradox about our current cosmological view of the universe. We may never really be able to resolve this kind of issue in any completely satisfactory way. The simplest and most direct way out of it is to presume an open and infinite universe, rather than a closed and finite one. Even if the observable universe was expanding, in such a model it would have always been infinite, hence it would lack a common point of origin for its expansion. It would be inflationary in the sense that it grows from within itself. We would never know without uncertainty if the expansion were merely a regional process or a process intrinsic to the total universe. This entails a paradox of an anti-entropic system.</p> <p>The fundamental problem with presuming uniform curvatures to light is that in order for the cosmic egg/big bang to appear uniformly at maximum distance in the night sky, light has to be almost circularly self-enclosing in some perfect sense. If light does not curve in uniform ways, or if it is in fact straight and not uniformly curved, then once the big bang event occurred, its light would have escaped forever our ability to detect it. Whatever we are standing on and contained within, would have been derived from the cosmic egg itself.</p> <p>If light is not self-enclosing, but infinitely expansive, then we must assume that light received omnidirectionally from vast distances represents vast stretches and expanses of space-time, that appears to grow only larger with increasing depth and breadth of focus, and not less, and regardless of any appearance of recession. If such is the case, which, again, seems to me to be more plausible and realistically consistent with the available evidence, then we should probably assume an infinite universe.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>The hypothesis of a finite universe leads us to a zero-state universe, that suggests that there is a basic condition of nothingness by which everything else gains contrast. Big Bang models, singularities, elementary particles and self-consistent models all imply a zero state universe.</p> <p>The hypothesis of an infinite universe leads to a non-zero state universe, suggesting that there can be in the ultimate sense no basic state of nothingness, but there is always something else by which everything gains contrast. For the most part, models of a non-zero state universe have not been developed, probably because they yield pictures that are infinitely complex.</p> <p>The model of the dynamic state universe is one that is built upon the construction of an infinite universe, because, otherwise, it would be too difficult to conceptualize a universe that is surrounded by nothing, or that has some kind of ultimate boundary beyond which there is nothing.</p> <p>Either way, we are led to the fundamental question of origination of reality. A zero state model implies some form of singularity and leaves unanswerable the problem of original creation, and appears on this basis to be suspect. A non-zero state model allows us at least to partially answer the question of original creation in terms of some prior set of conditions or states. In an ultimate sense, neither model resolves the question of ultimate creation or origination in a completely satisfactory manner. I do not think we can finally answer these questions in a provable way. It is a fundamental leap of faith that must be made in the grandest sense of our scientific worldview.</p> <p>There is a basic integrity about the universe. This basic integrity suggests that whatever happens, at whatever level, must be consistent with all other things that happen at all other levels, and must show epiphenomenal effects that are congruent with the larger picture of the universe. If we seek to impose blind models upon the universe, then it is likely that it will yield predictions of patterning that show inconsistencies and incongruencies with observable phenomenal effects upon some level. On the other hand, if we seek to impose the correct model, whether it proves to be zero or non-zero state, then we have the possibility of inductively inferring from observable consistency and congruency the validity of the model, without hope of final demonstration. We can never know if in physical reality there might not be some residual set of states or phenomenal patterns that are unaccounted for in our model.</p> <p>In understanding the universe, it is important to note that the total universe, whether finite or infinite, encompasses all physical reality possibly occurring. If we speculate that there are alternative multiple universes, each of these alternative universes is in fact but a subset of a larger structural entity that we can call the total universe. On some basic level, we must posit or presume a structural relationship underlying these alternative universes and connecting them somehow to a larger system of interaction. If we hypothesize a number of parallel but unconnected universes, then we ultimately would have no way of demonstrating our hypothesis in any conclusive sense. Not only would such a model be a-scientific, but it would be unnecessary to our scientific conceptualization of the total universe, for it would never be anything more than a product of our imagination.</p> <p>The total universe is therefore one that must in some minimal sense be congruent and interconnected with itself. This is not to say that the universe must be uniform or static in some general sense, or that it cannot have multiple alternative universes within itself. This basic sense of congruence entails that the total universe is possibly an inferable universe, because its sense of fundamental congruence would leave a mark, however indirect and minimal, upon the patterning of natural physical phenomena. If we cannot at least infer its presence, then we cannot presume scientifically its existence.</p> <p>We can put forward the paradox that though the total universe is by logical definition wholly inferable, it is by our understanding ultimately unknowable. Though we may be able to infer its basic structure, we cannot ultimately prove or directly observe its patterning in a way demanded of conventional science.</p> <p>The total universe always encompasses the inferable universe with a residual horizon of the unknowable universe. It is for this reason that I have adopted a non-zero state model of the universe as being a more coherent and possible more sufficient model. It can be demonstrated by the same means, that the inferable universe also always surrounds the observable universe with a residual vanishing horizon of the unobservable.</p> <p>Some scientists have, I believe, mistakenly confused the limits of observation as the limits of knowledgability about the universe, and they have taken this as evidence for a zero-state universe. Heisenbergian uncertainty dictates certain limits to our ability to see on a small scale, and this limit has been demonstrated in our experimental observations. Einsteinian relativity determines as well limits in our ability to see within the largest scale possible. We know that we cannot look out beyond time's arrow, which is the speed and propagation of light, and this has a basic curvature that somehow encompasses our horizon to see the entire universe. But these limits of observation do not preclude our ability to infer what is directly unobservable, and this remains valid procedure in science that is theory driven, as long as it is not contradicted at some point by what we can and do see.</p> <p>Being able to work successfully within an inferable universe that is by definition always a larger set than the observable universe, allows us to connect, in the last analysis, to a model of the total universe in a manner that can be considered minimally sufficient to the requirements of science. I do not believe we have reached that point, and will probably not soon obtain such a model, but it is possible, and it drives scientific inquiry forward upon a fundamental question to understanding what is most basic, universal and comprehensive about reality.</p> <p>The superimposition of a universal principle of physical congruence about the epi-phenomenal patterning of the universe allows us the possibility of realizing such a model in a non-self contradictory way. It offers a further advantage, I believe, in that it allows us always to at least indirectly observe and test our model derived from inference, in terms of what we can see.</p> <p>A conclusion of the principle of congruence is that whatever is observable in our small corner of the universe, however positively or lopsidedly this may really be, is somehow minimally congruent and consistent with the total universe, and of all other states-stages of the universe. If we cannot make this presupposition, then we have no hope for realizing in a scientific way a larger understanding of physical reality, and we will be bound to a world of limited observation only.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The principles of universal relativity that underlie the model of a dynamic state universe are based upon such a presupposition of physical congruence of reality. It states in its most basic form that all phenomena occurring within the universal frame of reference are in some way relative to that frame of reference, such that its most basic laws of mechanics will be the same for all co-occurring phenomena. We may see that there is some minimal sense of order, or what can be called universal integrity, that entails that, no matter what change phenomena occur, there must be some net result that is always balanced, or equivalent. We have yet to identify what is most basic about all phenomena in a clear and mathematical sense, though it implies entropy and inertia as negative-state properties.</p> <p>The point of departure of the model of the non-zero dynamic state universe is to presuppose that in the total sense, the universe is somehow a working system that is based upon energy exchange within a common instantaneous space. Energy exchange dynamics determine in a fundamental sense the non-linear mechanics of the entire system. This energy dynamics is construed in a universal frame of reference that specifies three sets of inviolable constraints. These are:</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. A continuous instantaneous rate of change that is the same for all phenomena. I believe this to be functionally related to the gravitational constant.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. A maximum limit of dynamic distortion which is a function of relative energetics of a system. In the positive state universe, this is related to the speed of light.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. A minimum limit of absolute rest which is known to be gravitationally equivalent to Absolute Zero.</p> <p>I would suggest two other kinds of limits that appear to be interdependent:</p> <p>a. The maximum-minimum limit of the local density of space-time.</p> <p>b. A size limit of the zeroth entity.</p> <p>Within this framework, all observable or inferable phenomena are relative to the actual energy dynamics of the system that they occur within, which means that the amount of change will be equivalent to the product of the rate of change times the total energy value of the system,</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">D = A(E)</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Since we know that Energy is equivalent to mass, by Einstein's famous formula, we can state that:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">D = A (mc<sup>2</sup>)</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>We know that D renders the total size of the system by measure of the amount of change that occurs within it over a given period of time. In this model, I adopt the second as the standard time interval of scale.</p> <p>We know from Einstein's special theory of relativity that time, space and mass are all physically altered by the Lorentz transformation law of a system in motion, such that:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Relative Length (S) = √1- v<sup>2</sup> /c<sup>2</p> </sup> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Relative Time-interval (T)= 1/√1- v<sup>2</sup> /c<sup>2</p> </sup> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Relative Mass (M) = mv √1- v<sup>2</sup> /c<sup>2</p> </sup> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Where v is the velocity</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">We can see from the formulas above that</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">T = 1/S and 1<sub>U</sub> = T ∙ S</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Where 1<sub>U</sub> is a value I will call absolute unity of the space-time construct.</p> <p>We can also state that, by substitution,</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">M = mv/S = mv(T)</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">And, therefore,</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">M = √ m<sup>2</sup> v<sup>2</sup> (T)/S</p> <p>We can speak of a relatively rarefied energy system or field as being one that approaches in its net value the state of absolute zero. We can speak of a relatively saturated positive mass-energy system or field as being one that approaches in its net value the speed of light. We cannot separate mass from energy, and both are the basis for the expression of space-time as we understand these as fundamental relativistic constraints.</p> <p>A totally rarefied energy system would be infinitely large and without positive mass. A totally saturated energy system would be infinitely small and with infinite mass. This is a grand paradox requiring all our powers of inferential resolution.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>I have hypothesized the existence of a zeroth entity as the smallest possible construct for the observable and inferable universe. The zeroth entity has only a basic characteristic of spin about a randomly rotating axis. The laws of Heisenbergian uncertainty determine that this entity is universally occurring and may occur anywhere in the universe with equal probability, as a function greater than the speed of light. Thus, it exhibits an intrinsic dynamics that describes its inherent non-particularity and its existence as a universal field.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">(Delta)∆X ∙ (Delta)∆p<sub>x</sub> (is greater than or equal to)≥ h</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">And</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">(Delta)∆E ∙ (Delta) ∆t (is greater than or equal to)≥ h</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">where h is Planck's constant, equivalent to 6.6 X 10<sup>-27</sup> erg-seconds</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">p<sub>x </sub>is the momentum of a particle P in the X-dimension</p> <p>If ∆X = 0, which would be a state of exact location from one point in time to the next, then ∆p<sub>x</sub> would be an infinitely large value. Hence we can state the principle of infinite-momentum uncertainty that the particle P might have any velocity from 0 to the speed of light, and any location in a second from its origin to the spherical circumference of the speed of light. We might state that any energy from absolute zero to the energy equivalent to the speed of light or greater, and any time interval from zero to infinitely large.</p> <p>The zeroth entity approximates this value to the nth degree, if we remove the restriction of the speed of light based upon our presupposition that negative energy fields may propagate faster than this or even instantaneously. We can say that in the systematic calculus of the energy dynamics of the universe, we can localize a zeroth entity by means of its stochastic attraction to some definable state-property. But we can do this only at the expense of other possible information about its value in all other or alternate state-properties, at whatever level of phenomenal patterning we may be dealing with. From this principle we can derive universal congruence, and from this, we can construct the entire universe. Another way of stating this is to claim that within the continuum of change of the universe, the zeroth entity may assume and achieve any kinds of allowable property, but only at the expense of the superposition of other alternative properties it may possibly achieve.</p> <p>This leads to what I will call a universal shadow effect that is cast by the requirement of physical congruence of the universe. The shadow effect states that any stable change state achieved in any instant by any zeroth-entity will result in distortion of relation of that entity to the background propagational field of which it is a part. This distortion will result in predictable counter-effects and it defines a universal figure-field relationship.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>In understanding this principle, we must define what we can call potential point instantaneity of the universe or of all physical phenomena occurring within the universe. The basis of universal congruence and universal relativity based upon an absolute rate of change is that of universal simultaneity of all co-occurring change events.</p> <p>At any exact instant, we can say that the entire universe is changing at the same rate, albeit at different relativistic intervals. Thus, at any particular moment, we can say that the universe occurs simultaneously upon an integrated wave front. This fourth-dimensional wave front is malleable in terms of the energy dynamics of the universe within the constraints of such dynamics previously set down.</p> <p>We can speculate upon the possibility of fifth or greater nth dimensions, which would provide us a picture of a more complex multi-state universe, if we can go beneath the principle of change as a function of time, to find some more basic sense of functional variation. In this, we must make a deep and intensive inquiry into the nature and structure of time and change. If we can discover this deeper principle underlying change, then we would have grounds for hypothesizing a fifth dimensional, multi-state universe. There is a sense only that time itself, as an absolute constant of a rate of change in the universe, may itself be fundamentally changing as an inherent dynamic of the total-state universe. If this is true, then it suggests the possibility of such a multi-state system. Such fluctuation of a constant value would entail that its apparent absolute rate is a continuous variable relative to the universal space-time construct that it occurs within, and this would be part of a larger continuum of a more basic dynamic.</p> <p>It is clear that the zeroth entity would be in theory a part of all universal systems it occurs within, though its basic values would be different and would fluctuate based upon whatever system it happened within at any one instant. We may say that for any given zeroth entity, we may specify some instantaneous point value that is continuously variable and complexly determined within the framework of the universal relativity.</p> <p>Thus, the zeroth entity would exhibit fifth or cross-dimensional properties that are not known or normally associated with known things in the universe. Its potential range of fluctuation would be constrained not only by the three sets of relativistic limits listed above, but by a fourth or more other constraint that would determine the total dimensionality of the universe in the largest sense possible. I would call this value the value of the universal flux, or universal dynamic. If such a value can be demonstrated to exist, then it would be logical to infer a multi-state universal system. We could say that in such a continuum of fluctuation, there are limits of variation that the system can achieve in the fifth dimension. From this, a true zeroth particle would possibly be capable of occupying any alternative state-fluctuation at any particular instant.</p> <p>The fluctuation of the rate of change suggests that the speed of light as a constant value of the universe, and absolute zero, as a constant threshold, would be minimally variable within some range, and this variation itself may suggest that the universe encompasses a more complex multi-state system. We would not notice this variation, because it would apply equally to the observable universe in an instantaneous way. The only way we could determine it would be to find values of inflation/deflation over the long term in relation to some larger reference-coordinate system at our disposal.</p> <p>If this is true, then we would have to hypothesize that the universe is not only infinite, but infinitely complex. We could say that it exhibits, as a non-zero state system, infinity in at least three senses:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. Extensive infinitude</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. Intensive infinitesimilitude.</p> <u> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. Dimensional infinitude</p> </u> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">4. Complex infinitude</p> <p>The possibility of dimensional infinitude is already apparent with the notion of eternity. In fact, if we posit spatial-extensive infinitude, then we must presuppose dimensional infinitude as well. If we can presuppose dimensional infinitude, then we can conclude that the universe is probably an infinitely complex multi-state system. The possibility of change itself is therefore strongly suggestive of a multi-state system.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>The universe is temporally constrained in some minimal sense. Our only means of observing this temporal constraint is change through time manifested in spatial dimensionality. Spatial dimensionality is regarded as being equivalent to temporality in the original formulation of the space-time continuum by Hermann Minkowski in 1908. Time is thus the fourth dimension and it is the independent variable of a linear regression of space.</p> <p>Ideally, according to the extended laws of Thermodynamics governing the total universal system, all change phenomena would seek to be universally random and in a state of total entropy. This state defines the infinite universal energy reservoir of the universe. Dynamic fluctuation of the instantaneous wave-front of the universe results in local state perturbations and reverberations that guarantee that the Universe can never achieve the state of Absolute Rest, or Changelessness, that it continuously seeks in all its transformations.</p> <p>In a sense, the positing of a zeroth entity guarantees this intrinsic dynamic underlying the universal relativity of the Universe. We can put it this way:</p> <p>1. No zeroth-entity may be permanently localized in any state.</p> <p>2. An absolute, zero-state universe would demand permanent localization of all zeroth entities.</p> <p>3. The universe is therefore inherently dynamic in a non-zero state.</p> <p>By derivation, we can see that the inherent uncertainty underlying our observability of natural physical phenomena in the universe is also the foundation for the apparent dynamics and inherent variability of the universe as a non-zero-state system. If it were zero-state, then there would be no fundamental sense of uncertainty.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The question arises therefore as to how the universe organizes itself in some relativistic manner as to preserve its universal continuity and congruence of structural patterning in spite of dynamic fluctuation. This ordering is held to be systematic and congruent upon all levels of its phenomenal event patterning, and it presents to us an inherent aspect of physical reality that is often over looked or taken for granted. The universe is naturally stratified on different levels of event patterning, and this stratification is minimally integrated in a systemic sense. The universe simultaneously co-occurs not only in time and space or in alternative dimensions, but it co-occurs simultaneously upon different orders of magnitude or scale.</p> <p>We can say that in the organization of physical phenomena, there can be no state-transition discontinuities. All change processes must be continuous and continuously dynamic. This inherent principle governing change patterning in the phenomenal universe, upon whatever level, suggests and implies strongly that the universe is a non-discontinuous state universe, which suggests as well that the universe is a non-zero state universe, as discontinuity between states entails the interposition of a non-state. Such interposition cannot occur in an integrated universe. Hence, if the universe is integrated in a comprehensive sense, then it is probably a non-zero state affair.</p> <p>The following diagram portrays the sense of continuity of the universe, at all levels, and over time and space. We can say that if there is offset between interval A and A' in some absolute, non-relativistic sense, then the universe is probably multi-state and complexly infinite. Since all change phenomena are relative to the universal frame of reference, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to tell the difference between interval A and A', except perhaps by some indirect means.</p> <p>By means of this diagram, we can regularly see that all event phenomena, upon whatever level of our analysis, will exhibit a sense of continuity of change. Uneven fluctuation or stochastic differentiation arising from the basic system, entails that some sense of shadow effect must be produced upon the rest of the system such that net congruence and continuity is preserved.</p> <p>It is not difficult, in such a model, to imagine the operation of a fifth or greater dimensions in the structural patterning of change in our observable reality, though it would prove very difficult to demonstrate.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR6.ht43.gif" width="702" height="339"></p> <p> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>We might say that in this diagram, if negative space-time exists at speeds greater than the speed of light, then it the system, as a well system is bottomless. There is no lower limit in the diagram, such that it grows infinitely large.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>The model defined above begs a basic question about how it is that we can understand motion and relation in an absolutely contemporaneous way, in a sense that is hypothetically independent of the relativistic frames of reference in which such motion normally occurs in the world. This must be related to the notion of field lines and negative energies to the extent that these define instantaneous relationships between entities coexisting in space-time. It appears to us that we can infer the contemporaneous existence of the present-state universe, though we cannot know exactly its current disposition. We pay a price for our knowledge by means of universal relativity of change phenomena.</p> <p>The supposition of instantaneous field lines entails a notion not of change, but of stasis. Contemporaneousness of change events implies a notion of such events happening independently in a temporal continuum.</p> <p>It is my intention to demonstrate a very fundamental principle that nothing that happens in the universe can happen in a manner that is completely independent of some larger frame of reference. In other words, any two contemporaneous change events cannot occur in a completely independent sense of one another, though they seem historically to be so. They must occur in some minimal sense at least within a unified field. Such independence would imply, once again, a kind of fundamental discontinuity of structure of the universe that would suggest both a zero-state universe and some absolutistic sense of nothingness underlying it. Any two events, say at opposite ends of the universe, or even in alternative universes, must somehow be minimally interconnected in a grander sense of universal integration of reality.</p> <p>Understanding this, is to understand how the universal "wave front" of change that constitutes the complex fabric of our space-time maintains its structural integrity through time. As a result, it is to understand how energy and gravitational systems occur as systems in an on-going and universal way, and how the very fabric of space-time resists rupture or destruction absolutely, in spite of what appears to be possibly extreme distortions and even "conversions."</p> <p>Indeed, we have posited for a non-zero state model of the universe that there can be no fundamental discontinuity of structural pattern and this underlies a conception of universal relativism. We must seek to understand how this must be so. In the realization of any change entity-event, there occurs some sense of distortion or disequilibrium that connects that even to the surrounding structure of the universe. At some level, in some way, some kind of negative energy pattern is exerted that confers a sense of balance in any change-equation. Another way of looking at this is that any complex change event (A) always has a complement event (A') such that for any event, there is always a net balance of unity, or:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">A · A' = 1<sub>U</p> </sub> <p>If A is some particularistic change event, and unity represents the total balance of the entire universe, then complement A' would represent all other co-occurring change events that happens simultaneously with A. It follows that:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">A = 1<sub>U</sub> /A'</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">and</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">A' = 1<sub>U</sub> /A</p> <p>I will speculate that negative energy is attractive, and its field lines always propagate transversely, and instantaneously, relative to the direction of positive energy propagation. We understand this as magnetism in electromagnetic fields. I would refer to it as gravity-waves in spime-gravitational fields that propagate perpendicular to the axis of gravitational radiation. It can be seen that a wave-front of light is an instantaneous field traveling through the universe at the speed of light.</p> <p>In this model, balancing of complementary positive and negative energies or forces is always conserved, such that we may speculate that negative energies constitute the basis for entropy of energy and inertia of mass in the same way. Balance appears to be an important principle of the universe underlying all transaction events or changes. There is always net conservation of both energy and mass. This is the basis for all systems seeking relative equilibrium within the larger system of relations. Charge can be understood in the same manner, if we assume that negative charges are essentially "holes" of charge differential that exist in the spime matrix to be filled in.</p> <p>In this model, for any given mass-energy system in a uniform spime gravitational field, I will state the following:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The total instantaneous entropy of the system is equal to the total instantaneous inertia of the system.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The negative energy properties of space-time appears to be a great restoring or equilibriating force in the change dynamics of the positive-state universe. Entropy and inertia are the great properties of negative energy in space-time. Furthermore, it is evident that the basis of gravitational unification, that I call spin-synchronization, demands that the universe be symmetrical with respect to spin resonance. In this sense, we may say the following:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Entropy is the non-reciprocal effect of positive energy in a negative field system.</p> <p>We are searching for a model of relations between change events that defies our conventional understanding of causality and change as a time ordered process. We understand the co-occurrence of otherwise independent change events as a kind of correlative patterning, and we seek to understand the co-varying structural aspects of this correlative patterning. Are such events truly independent, or are they covariance structure models mediated by some common force or principle operating upon both systems simultaneously?</p> <p>We must also understand that in any instantaneous change event, exact contemporaneity happens outside of the temporal framework. At the same time, this model and all change events occurring within it are unified by the temporal dimension in the sense that no change event can be exactly particularistic, just as no sub-quantum particle can have exactly particularistic properties.</p> <p>The fourth dimension of time, is really the continuous expression of change of the unified field of the universe. We cannot know the exact contemporaneous disposition of the entire universe, whether it is infinite or not. We can conclude that in fact, all change events are occurring and always occur within the same sphere of reality, and this sphere of reality can be concluded to be spatially defined in an instantaneous way. The spatial dimension is actually more basic to the temporal dimension, except that we can only know space in the positive sense as a function of time.</p> <p>Change is always a process defined through a temporal continuum, and any two contemporaneous or cooccurring change events that appear otherwise independent of one another, say two bursting stars in distant corners of the universe, are nevertheless united within a common spatial and temporally instantaneous continuum, relativistic considerations notwithstanding. We can logically understand how time appears to hang together in a temporal way, but to understand the properties of synchronous time is more difficult to comprehend. We can say that the two apparently independent events are parallel to one another in the temporal dimension.</p> <p>I have previously related the generation of field lines to spin synchronization and what I have termed gravitational unification. In this mechanical way, we can explain the collateral structures that serve to tie the universe together in a common temporal frame. But this by itself appears to be an insufficient explanation for this kind of phenomena, especially if we posit a concept of universal instantaneity of a zeroth entity. We can see how extreme distortions can occur in this unfolding fabric if there is no greater framework that embeds it in reality, though I believe there might really be this.</p> <p>If it is like a huge sheet falling freely in space, it can bend and turn and twist in an infinite number of ways, but appears always continuous to itself within itself. If we were enmeshed like a flea within its texture, we might travel its many changing ridges and folds as it continues falling, without really noticing the alterations that it is undergoing. Thus, at any one moment, though on a basic level we can say that a bend in one corner of the fabric is connected by the fabric to the change of the other opposite corner, the two change events appear as relatively independent of one another except perhaps in relationship to the sheet as a whole.</p> <p>Nevertheless, there remains a residual sense of universal interconnectedness of co-occurring change events in the universe which are not sufficiently explainable in terms of the sub-spime mechanics of field lines, negative forces, and zeroth entities. These explain perhaps the phenomena in some local sense. The question remains as to how these things are tied together in a universal sense, especially if the universe is considered to be infinite in extent and dimensionality.</p> <p>The zeroth entity perhaps exists instantaneously as a universal and infinite entity, but it explains I believe the possibility of universal co-occurrence, but not the actual happenstance of an infinite number of independent change events that are contemporaneous. Somehow, though it may be possible, we don't expect at any moment an alternative universe, or a black hole from some other dimension, to come bursting in upon our own little solar system. If things are four or twenty light years away from us, we expect that next year they will remain relatively the same distance away from us. We would expect this the following century, and the following millennium.</p> <p>Another way of looking at this is to state that if energy systems occur within a relativistic frame of reference as a function of time, time in some fundamental sense is not dependent upon those energy systems. If we removed all the energy systems simultaneously from the universe, we could not say thereby that we removed the state of time by which the universe orders itself.</p> <p>I will hypothesize the gyroscopic stability of the universe to explain the effect of universal co-occurrence. We can therefore speak of an already unified field that is universally co-occurring. The entire universe is set upon a stable equilibrium along the temporal dimension like a gyroscopic compass. If we understand the principle of the gyroscope, we can see that inertial energy is maintained in such a system by means of its universal spin syncrhonization. Any change in a gyroscope tends to lead to inertial resistance. All things in the universe are synchronized to the same gyroscopic compass, so to speak. This axis can be said to be uniform in the temporal dimension. The inertia of energy contained in the system due to its angular momentum creates a negative energy effect. In a sense, the universe can be said to be pre-stabilized or synchronized about this axis. We can see that any local change event, of any scale, would be enough to result in precession of the fabric about its temporal axis. We can understand unification as the synchronization of the gyroscopes of the universe such that it constitutes a continuous field of negative or potential energy. Perturbations to any local area, result in gyroscopic resistance that has its origins in the field lines tying together the entire universal field.</p> <p>This universal gyroscopic effect is related, I believe, to the spin synchronization or what can be called inter-harmonic field resonance of its constituent entities. Vibrations of the field are resonant and self-dampening.</p> <p>The universal field describes a passive network of periodic harmonic oscillators with n number dimension of freedom and occurring in nth possible dimensions, or what I would call dimensionlessness. We must understand the field lines that tie this universal field together as vibrating in complex space, connecting the source and receiver of transmissions at different levels respectively.</p> <p>The closest approximation to this kind of phenomena, at least for light energy, and possibly for gravitational radiation, is the model of acoustical transmission. This describes a form of mechanical vibration, but we must consider that it is a form of quantum-fluid mechanical vibration.</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR6.ht44.gif" width="587" height="228"></p> <p> </p> <p>The universal energy field is a coherent and complex phenomenon upon all the levels. We can describe the well system either in terms of the smallest entities/properties, or in terms of the largest areas each comprises in the universe, which would invert the order above. It is evident that there is an inverse relationship between size of entity and possibilistic space that describes its field, as depicted below:</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR6.ht45.gif" width="462" height="213"></p> <p> </p> <p>We may say, consistent with natural systems theory, that all higher order phenomena, like matter-energy interactions, are composed of lower order phenomena, but lower order phenomena, as found in apparently empty space-time, are not necessarily related to higher level interactions.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>Field lines can be seen therefore as the inherent inertia of resistance of the already integrated spime matrix, or the unification of this matrix as a systemic gyroscopic effect. The effects of light or gravitational systems in such a matrix can be understood as the resonance and precession or nutation effects of the perturbations upon the field lines. We may understand the potential or latent energy contained in the already unified field of the spime matrix as representing that inertia of momentum of a synchronous gyroscope by which all events achieve unification in the universe. In such a system, what is positive and what is negative is entirely relative. We might see the perturbation and disequilibrium of such a system as a negative energy effect applied to a positive system.</p> <p>The propagation of light can therefore be understood as the continuum of effects that spreads from the point of origin upon this unified field. The unified field must be very fine tuned, and capable of transmitting a tremendous amount of information through its manifold simultaneously. The information must be transmitted by means of discrete precession states of the minimal spin elements.</p> <p>It is possible that there is an inherent uncertainty principle operating in terms of the axis of rotation of its essential components, such that it may be realized with equal probability in an infinite number of alternative directional axii. It can be said to be omni-directionally perfect in its propagation potential.</p> <p>Another way of stipulating universal synchronicity and continuity of fabric of the universe is to claim that it is unified gyro-magnetically and must always be so, such that there is no fundamental discontinuous moments of its fundamental gyroscopic stability. We cannot so perturb the gyroscopic stability of the system that it would result in the occurrence of a discontinuous state or rupture in the spime fabric. If we cause a local perturbation in such a system, its effects will propagate and resonate through the entire system on some minimal level. This unification arose out of the dynamic differentiation of the spime structure of the universe.</p> <p>The long term and larger pattern of this resonance propagation of energy in the universe in the spime fabric is always nearly completely chaotic, such that destructive interference tends to cancel out change effects at long distance, and also tends to even create negative counter-effects.</p> <p>To see time as a kind of gyroscope in a universal sense is to see that it contains a huge amount, indeed, an infinite amount of intrinsic energy remains normally unrealized but realizable within any change event. The natural background of the universe does not want to yield or give up its latent energy very easily. To do so requires much local energy that we understand as positive and directed. We can also understand that any positive energy effect will not destroy the gyroscopic unity of this fabric, but only result in its disturbance.</p> <p>If we are to understand gravity in this framework, and its effects, we can see it really as the expression of resistance to inertia of any change event. To break the gyroscopic stability of the essential fabric of spime at any particular point would require a great deal of energy. If we could realize an explosion upon one particular point or instant, of an infinite amount of energy, then we can realize a rupture of the fabric of spime at that point. The entropic and instantaneous dissolution of the energy to the surrounding manifold of space-time would represent the resonance effects of the explosion upon its manifold. The dissipation of the effects can be understood in terms of the intrinsic resistance of spime to the energy effects induced upon it by the explosion. We can say, in a negative sense, that the positively realized energy becomes "reabsorbed" back into the negative energy sink or system. It does this by means of its causing precession that eventually rebounds to its normal axis.</p> <p>Entropy then can be understood not so much as a direct diffusion of energy from a source, but of radiative dissipation and its gradual re-absorption back into the manifold of the fabric from which it was created in the first place. We can speak therefore of an interface of crossing over between positive and negative energies, such that there is transference of the energy from a realized to a potentiated or possibilistic state. It can be seen that energy radiated into the universe from its many dynamic centers does not become simply lost in the vastness of space-time, but actually reenters back into this vastness by several different pathways.</p> <p>We can also say that just as there is no perfectly positive energy that is without its entropic degradation, there is also no perfectly negative energy or "entropy" that is without its residual positive expression in its field. Another way of looking at this is to say that once resonance perturbation occurs within the spime matrix, it is such a near perfect harmonic system, that its resonance pattern continues in ever diminishing degrees practically forever. It is only possibly neutralizable by some counter-pattern of destructive interference. It is as if the universe were a near perfect tuning fork in a vacuum that encountered no resistance. Once set in motion, it would resonate forever.</p> <p>Entropy is therefore really the measure of net resistance of spime to the effects of energy. Light travels the speed of light, which is a constant, not because it propagates at this speed, but this is the normal measure of its resistance to spime. This measure behaves non-thermodynamically because it is gravitationally based. The mass of the photon is the measure of its gravitational resistance, and this determines its speed. It follows that if positive energy cannot propagate faster than this speed, then no positive system composed of positive energy can also propagate faster than this speed.</p> <p>We can also say that positive and negative universes inter-functions gravitationally as a gyrator device, such that there is a reversal of signal polarity for positively realized gravitation compared to its negative counter-process. Gravitation, as we understand this phenomena, is the non-reciprocal realization of negative energy as a positively expressed energy. In other words, in gravitational interactions between positive and negative systems, the inputs of one are not interchangeable with the outputs. Another way of considering this is to state that the interactions between positive and negative spime states in one way are nonreciprocal to their interactions in the obsverse direction. Positive realization of negative energy is in the form of motion of free falling objects, momentum and the inertia of mass or energy. Negative resistance of positive energy is realized in the form of radiation.</p> <p>In other words, the gravitational lens effect of mass-bound objects functions as a gravitational gyrator device. Omni-directional inputs to this device by means of spime induction are not equivalent to the gravitational radiation outputs of this device.</p> <p>It follows that if we are to understand the fabric of spime and its gravitational interactions upon matter and energy, then we must get at this model of the gyroscope and the gyrator that is inherent to its negative energy and its unification. We must understand that in negative space-time energies, we may state the reciprocity theorem such that for any possible realization of wxyz infinitesimals at a given level of analysis, we have the expression of a passive linear network. We can say that the universe constitutes a vast four pole passive network at all levels except at its end state of positive phenomenal expression.</p> <p>We can see that positively realized energies and mass are essentially active networks that do not obey the principle of reciprocity. They can be seen to unfold in time in a unidirectional way. The effect of entropy can be considered to be the consequences of this nonreciprocal property of positive change effects to establish complementary balance. We have therefore the difference between thermodynamic and non-thermodynamic transition phenomena, on one level at least. If thermodynamic phenomena are non-reciprocal in a basic sense of its mass-bound property, then entropy is the measure of its resistance to the matrix it occurs within.</p> <p>It is apparent that all positive energy states are mass-bound states, and mass-binding creates a gravitational gradient between negative and positive states. Mass-binding can be seen as a kind of Faraday rotation that results in non-reciprocal radiation of energy. Light as energy transmits through the external spime matrix in one direction and all noticeable change effects are unidirectional. Spime is a substance transparent to energy that passes through it. Thus, it is predicted that the energy passing through spime in a magnetic field, then the light becomes rotated about its access in the same nonreciprocal direction, regardless of the direction of propagation. These are predictable and demonstrable effects that should allow us to experimentally test the theory.</p> <p>We might speculate, if this were true, that gravitational energies that are normal to the external spime matrix are reciprocal in propagating in both directions simultaneously, or perhaps, I should say, interactively and hence attractively. Change as a function of time, and even time itself, can be seen as a basically non-reciprocal propagation pattern of positive energy fields and matter that arises from these energy fields. Time, in other words, is a property of energy and matter as these are normally experienced as positive change phenomena. Space as a relativistic dimensionality that is related to time, is also a part of this positive nonreciprocal change phenomena.</p> <p>From this, we may state that positive energies (and mass) occur non-reciprocally in time. Negative energies of spime occur reciprocally and instantaneously, in non-time, such that if its change direction is flowing one way, it is flowing the opposite way in a reciprocal manner. If this is true, then time is no longer a constraint upon the system as we understand it, and we can understand therefore instantaneous propagation of negative field lines or energies that bind different, otherwise independent change events together in a co-occurring frame of reference. Co-occurring change events are bound together contemporaneously regardless of their spatial-temporal constraints and independent histories of change. Universal simultaneity of the universe is therefore, as an inference structure of universal relativity, outside of the normal structural constraints of space and time. It is infinite in both senses because in a fundamental way, these kinds of constraints do not apply.</p> <p>Again, another way of looking at this phenomenon is to claim that positively expressed energies occur in nonreciprocal time. Time flows in only one direction, and thus is a basic constraint upon all positively occurring systems. Time flows in two directions simultaneously in negatively occurring systems, such that it is no longer a constraint in its self-canceling characteristics. We can infer its effects by the synchronization of change events, as co-occurring events, or by the inference of such change events, at vastly separate points.</p> <p>It follows that we can understand something of the structure of time in the positive sense. We could not have time if we did not have mass-binding or positive gravitation effects in the universe. All change events would be reciprocally self-canceling in a non-positive state universe. We can therefore also clearly understand the relativity of time effects to the energy system it occurs within, the greater the energy system it happens within, the more relative the effects upon time are. It follows that a universe devoid of all energy and positive mass would be the equivalent of a zero-state universe that would exist without the expression of time as we know it. Any change event occurring in such a relative zero-state universe would be reciprocal and therefore self-canceling. In such a universe, which would also be a static-state universe, there would be no non-reciprocal change phenomena and the difference between zero and non-zero state universes would not exist. It would be a completely undifferentiated universe. We know this not to be true, by the inference of energy and matter in the large and in the long run, hence, we conclude the universe is dynamic state and also non-zero state, somewhat tautologically.</p> <p>We can say that the positive-state universe arose from the negative-state universe, which is more basic to it, as the possibility due to the non-reciprocal mass binding of its constituent elements of spime. We can conclude that positive mass phenomena arose as a result of spime-binding to itself, or of spime collision. If it allows us to understand better what time is, and hence what space is, it permits us also to better understand the positive results of mass and energy as nonreciprocal spin unification. We can speculate that mass binding arises as the result of spin parity that serves as a gyroscopic coupler to constituent elements in bound energy states. Thus, such elements gain positive non-reciprocity of expression in time and in space.</p> <p>It follows, that if this model is correct, then we must seek to explain reciprocity of passive linear networks and the non-reciprocity of active networks in terms of the hypothetical sub-quantum mechanics that characterizes the systematic structure of spime and sub-spime realms.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>While it seems that greater than light speed cannot be attained, it remains possible that the non-reciprocal effects of positive mass and energy in the universe may somehow be counteracted and thus neutralized. If this theory is correct, then it might be possible to create a negative field around a spacecraft by means of a kind of "anti-gravity" device that would eliminate effectively the resistance the mass of the device would encounter in normal space-time. If such resistance could be eliminated, then it is possible that this craft could retain its integrity without having to be constrained by normal spatio-temporal limits on positive mass. Under such conditions, such a craft might easily achieve greater than light speeds by simply phasing out and back into positive reality.</p> <p>If energy creates its own field, then mass must also create its own field. This is its gravity field--the field lines radiating from mass. This is an important concept that ties energy and mass together gravitationally, and helps us to understand better how gravitation normally occurs and works to achieve unification of the spime matrix. We can say that the field lines that occur about a mass object arise out of the requirement that spin stabilization be achieved in the spime matrix between the object and its surrounding field it is embedded within. These lines propagate omni-directionally in almost universal and instantaneous directions. We can say that differential field lines that occur direct the flow of spime in the universe, or what we might say, its stochastic probability of directional recurrence. The presence of a large mass object draws off spime on a continuous basis, in direct relationship to the shape and density distribution of the object.</p> <p>We must speculate on the following kinds of propositions:</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. For any positive effect occurring in the universe, there must be a diminishing negative universal field associated with that effect that forms the complement of that effect.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. All simultaneously co-occurring effects in the universe share the same complex universal field, which is a chaotic composite of all the individual field-effects occurring within it.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. The effect itself is a part of the universal field to which it is embedded, and is determined negatively by that field. Entropy is the result of this field..</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">4. The field-effect appears to be infinitely complex and contains unlimited information potential.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">5. Field effects in the long run and in the large cancel one another out and become neutralized--they tend to increase in noise and decrease in informational order.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">6. If changing effects result in disruptions of field lines, then it follows that disruption of field lines results in changing effects, much as electrical energy can be created by the disruption of magnetic field lines.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">7. Fields are stratified and defined by the elements that compose them. Fields are embedded within one another such that they form a well-system such that the cardinality of one field is determined by its elements and in turn constitute the components of the field in which it is embedded.</p> <p>Spime-gravitational energy is the non-thermodynamic equivalent of electro-magnetic energy. It is non-thermodynamic because it exhibits properties of universal reciprocity.</p> <p>Field lines form a universal reciprocal network. We might say that any nth particulate may occur with equal possibility in any place within an nth field, but all nth particulates must co-occur simultaneously with equal probability within the same field. The field itself must be maintained as a continuum of possibility, regardless of the actual state of any particularistic entity or property within that continuum.</p> <p>In the minimum original undifferentiated universe, there was no difference between a zero or non-zero state, but a non-zero state universe arose out of its own possibility in such a system. We cannot speak of the infinitude or eternity of the original state of the universe, because it had no time or space as we understand these phenomena in a relativistic sense. Space and time arose as a result of its relativistic differentiation into multiple states. In this model, time is not the original basis or fundamental cause of the universe--it is its ultimate and final effect. Time is completely relative to the frame it occurs within.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>Pressure is defined as the ratio of force to surface area. Pressure emerges as a very important concept in the universe, and is evidence of the continuum or fluid dynamics of the spime matrix as this normally occurs. It can be understood as intrinsic field resistance to state change, or as potential energy. Gravity can be defined as a form of spime pressure. It is relatively continuous and non-entropic. Pressure is often taken as the equivalent or alternative of thermodynamic energy, and many of the same reactions requiring energy can be accomplished by means of pressure.</p> <p>Pressure figures importantly in the formation and historical trajectory of stars. Gravitational systems are by definition pressurized systems. They function as pressure-cookers within which furnace all the known elements and matter are forged.</p> <p>Pressure is a value that can be measured by a standard, and various instruments have been devised for its systematic measurement. Pressures occurring in the sun are considered to be very great, while pressures normally occurring on the surface of the earth are considered the normal standard. It has been assumed that deep intergalactic space approaches zero pressure, though I must speculate that from the standpoint of positively pressured systems, it could in fact exhibit a form of negative gravitational pressure.</p> <p>Pressure indirectly can be construed as a measure of energy in a system. Energy exhibits some form of pressure as a consequence of its occurrence. The hypothesis of the natural occurrence of light as a field system gives credence to the notion that this system is in fact one that is measurable in terms of its dynamic pressures.</p> <p>A theory of pressure has not yet been developed. I believe such a theory would be intrinsic to a field theory of the universe. It must take into account not only positive pressure as this is measurable but negative pressures or neutral pressures as these can be inferred indirectly from the effects and actions of negative forces in the universe, such as the normal occurrence of gravity, inertia and entropy.</p> <p>Pressure must be seen therefore as a continuum of relative pressure-balance within a larger field system that always seeks equilibrium and conservation.</p> <p>The notion of pressure appears to me to be an important issue in understanding gravitation and energy in the universe. All energies and forces may be measured by some degree of pressure they exert upon some specified region for a given period of time. Gravitation can be understood as a kind of pressure that spime exerts upon the objects that it gravitates upon. Inertia of resistance to acceleration can be understood as a form of negative pressure. Mass-object mechanics are understood in terms of pressure that is the cumulative result of gravitational unification of mass objects about some focal point. Pressure is also logically understood as the measure of resistance to motion or change in any system.</p> <p>Pressure is therefore a positive nonreciprocal phase pattern of energy happening in some direction and irreversibly in time. It is the non-thermodynamic equivalent of heat as a measure of energy in systems.</p> <p>Spime is a self-pressurizing system that is reciprocal to itself in its normal negative state. Any positive system exhibits nonreciprocal pressure upon the matrix in which it is embedded and gravitational disequilibrium is the result, which can be understood in terms of gyroscopic precession.</p> <p>We can state that all forms of positive pressure are universally equivalent to one another, relative to the frame of reference it occurs within. All forms of negative pressure are equivalent relative to itself, and complementary to the positive pressure by which it is understood and measured.</p> <p>Gravitation as pressure gives us a handle by which to theoretically comprehend it as a force in the universe. To understand space-time as maintaining its own system of pressure is to see that the universe is a dynamic background out of which mass and energy are continuously formed and reshaped. The basis for the origination of energy and mass, and for its thermodynamic and entropic characteristics, is its arising from and returning to the essential substrate of the universe. This process can be understood in terms of equivalencies that have at their basis a common ground in the understanding of pressure theory and pressure dynamics. At the heart of this theory is the presumed structural equivalence between different forms of pressure as these naturally occur in the universe, and an understanding of pressure therefore as a basic manifestation of both change and process in the universe.</p> <p>It can be seen in the definition of pressure that it is a continuous, fluid effect and that it occurs as a system over space and time. It is a process that cannot be described in terms of points or discrete elements.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>We can speculate that no complementary field line can propagate slower than or equal to the speed of light in the universe. The limit of the observational sphere is this positive limit upon space-time. It is possible that if gravitation is an energy level that propagates faster than the speed of light, then it exists essentially beyond the normal boundaries of our observational sphere. In fact, we can infer that gravitation is really the negative energy of these field lines, and that at the level of electromagnetism, it is comparable in form to magnetism that is manifest in electrically charged fields. There are corresponding energies that may be related to gravitational field lines, such that energy and field lines form complementary sets at descending levels or orders of magnitude in the organization of spime.</p> <p>To get at the structure of the organizational pattern of spime, we must attempt to understand how it is that units may become infinitely reducible to themselves in some formula. The most straightforward way is to imagine any particulate entity, or what I will call a possibility, exists as some functionally defined set. Each element of the set is determined by a matrix of sub-elements that are in turn determined by yet another matrix, and so on ad infinitum. The determinants of each set would be the cardinal value of that set, or the particularistic properties that are conferrable to that set at the next highest level, and that themselves form the functional basis for variation as a set for yet higher levels of organization. The magnitudes at each level would correspond to the dimensions or size of the sets involved. If we speak of particularistic entities or elements comprising a given level of informational organization, then we are referring actually to a set of possibilities the sum total of which provides a range of properties that determine the cardinality of the set as a whole. At this stage, we cannot understand the particular characteristic properties of the sub-elements of each set without reference to the larger cardinal property of the set they are partially determinative of, and so on and on up to the level that we are empirically familiar with.</p> <p>Each particular entity at a higher level therefore comprises the determination of a vast plethora of sub-entities in an infinite regress. Gravitational radiation can be understood as the expression of integration of these sub-entities as possibilities at all descending levels, or what we might call a well set. Thus, gravity as a force constitutes a well set.</p> <p>At the level of spime, we have a constituent entity composed of some kind of combination, hypothetically of n-particulates, which entity may occur simultaneously at any point at the speed of gravity.</p> <p>If we are looking for negative gravity, or what can be called sub-gravitational forces occurring in the universe, then perhaps we must look to the interstices of the observable universe, where it is possible to define some limit to gravitational attraction.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>Consideration above about propagation of light systems begs the question of whether an object can actually attain the speed of light. It is perhaps the case that we will never really know until we try it. It used to be thought that no airplane could attain the speed of sound. We can therefore only conjecture on the possibilities of light-speed travel. Relativity theory predicts that as we approach the speed of light, our transportation system would slow down and become infinitely small. At the same time, we would acquire infinite momentum.</p> <p>There is no reason to think that a system cannot maintain its structural integrity as a system approximate to the speed of light. We should expect no internal changes that would be noticeable. The challenge would be to generate enough energy of acceleration to achieve such a speed. Objects in space, gas streams especially, have been seen to travel at velocities significantly proportionate to the speed of light. The challenge is that of protect our own craft from the effects of the energy required to accelerate us to that speed.</p> <p>There is some evidence to suggest that in fact light speed may not in fact be a universal absolute, just a constant of energy. Some things and perhaps some forms of energy may propagate faster than the speed of light.</p> <p>I would conjecture that gravitational radiation might actually travel more "instantaneously" than light itself. If this is the case, then it should be possible to overpass light speed.</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR6.ht46.gif" width="635" height="212"></p> <p> </p> <p>We can conjecture that in fact gravity as an energy system propagates actually much more quickly than light-speed. We have just not measured it as such until now. We also know that time interval and spatial interval change such that the line would actually describe a relativistic curve with positive arc. If gravity systems can propagate faster than light itself then it is possible to imagine ourselves traveling faster than light itself. If we can consider mass systems a form of energy system, then we can see that mass systems would somehow have to observe the same constraints as any energy system it is a part of or that is intrinsic to it. But according to our model of independent self-propagation of light systems, then we would have to conjecture upon a force or speed of propagation that can be considered "universally instantaneous." Such a speed would be an infinite speed. It would unite the entire universe in a single simultaneous instant.</p> <p>At the other end of the continuum, we can speculate on a "zero" motion that would be the equivalent of absolute rest. It would in essence be an empty system without mass energy.</p> <p>We have speculated that the basis of universal relativity is what is called universal simultaneity of change. This would imply some force underlying the change processes of the universe that is essentially of infinite speed. This would seem to us of course to be a totally "rarefied energy system" at least in the sense of positive energy systems as we understand these to occur. The assumption we have made of universal simultaneity that we derive deductively from an assumption of universal congruence. Universal congruence we in turn derived inductively from the largest and smallest observations possible of our own system, suggests that such a force may in fact exist that underlies the structural coherence of change in the universe. We infer universal congruence because of the local observational stasis and relative permanence of all systems that we can and do observe. This is not to say that such systems are not changing--often violently so--but even these change events are part of a larger system that preserves and maintains its coherence at all levels.</p> <p>Our effort to reconcile this leads me to postulate a zeroth force that is constituted by instantaneous field lines based upon the zeroth-entity, which may in fact be a composite entity. This zeroth entity has an interesting property of non-particularity that can be translated into the property of universal simultaneity, or in a quantum sense, as probability of infinitely large occurrence of an infinitely small entity. In essence, this entity as a particular thing can occur anywhere at once, and as an actual thing, in fact occurs everywhere at the same time as part of a minimally unified energy field that connects not only the total universe, but all possible universes, in a coherent way. If there is quintessence in the universe, then this would be perhaps its foundation.</p> <p>We must see this quintessence as a negative energy field rather than as a positively realized form of energy. There are perhaps limits imposed by the speed of light that determine that no positive energy system may travel faster than its speed, though negative energy systems may easily cross-over this speed and may in fact always do. I do not know what the essentially difference between a positive and negative energy system might really be. We normally think of energy as realized in a particular point or in a direction as a vector, or as part of some dynamic system. Negative energy might not occur as a point or dimensionally in any given direction--if it is a part of this system, then perhaps this system is negative in function rather than positive. If this is the case, then we can conjecture that what appears to be entropic about the positive universe, may in fact be anti-entropic in negative systems. This is a strange thing to consider in our reality. Anti-entropic systems in a sense are not perpetual motion systems--they must be seen as negative balance systems. This is what I will call the shadow principle underlying our positive universe. Essentially, for every positive occurrence or action that we can observe, at a certain sub-spime level there is a set of negative actions that occur that serve to relate that system to a larger universal reference system. The field lines we hypothesize in spime can be understood in this way. We can never be a part of this "negative balance" system because we are ourselves always a part of the positive system. It is always "complementary" to whatever does occur, and it links everything that does occur simultaneously into a grand system.</p> <p>In such a negative-balance system, we can say that greater than light speeds are not only possible, but in essence required. In this sense, we can understand the principles of superposition, complementariness and quantum relativity writ large, as the negative balance sheet to every positively realized state. Each state that we can describe physically therefore would have a negative balance sheet that can be systematically described on at least one if not multiple other levels of analysis--both in the small and in the large.</p> <p>Perhaps we have a paradox that the entity representing the least amount of force, the zeroth entity, is the one that has the greatest net effect upon the universe, and is the one that achieves the fastest possible speed. If this is how we can understand light speed, then we must conjecture a kind of bell shaped curve:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR6.ht47.gif" width="673" height="164"></p> <p> </p> <p>In such a model, we can see that whatever happens on the positive side, would leave a complementary set of occurrences on the negative side, and this is consistent with our understanding of Heisenbergian uncertainty. We can go further, and speculate that a reverse universe occurs.</p> <p>We can never naturally cross to the negative or shadow side of this universe. We might enter regions as perhaps in the depths of intergalactic space where we feel the effects of the negative side upon us more strongly than the positive effects and this would account for universal red shifting of light. If we could gain light speed, it is possible perhaps that we could effect a cross over into a "reverse universe." The reverse universe would not be the same as the positive universe, but would be opposite our own.</p> <p>In such a universe, if we travel faster than light speeds, we might cross into a reverse universe. In such a case, given our positive system, we would either be totally annihilated, or else if we could survive the crossing, we would find our positive energies have a reverse effect.</p> <p>We must conclude that light speeds remain an open question. It is possible that things can travel faster than light, but that is a separate question compared to whether we can ever achieve such speeds, or whether this can be naturally achieved or artificially induced in spite of natural relativistic constraints.</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR6.ht48.gif" width="643" height="377"></p> <p> </p> <p>Light speeds may be attainable, if the normal resistance effects to positive energy could be overcome. It is possible that these effects can be overcome by means of inter-harmonic oscillation of the positive energies such that they do not cause mass precession effects upon space-time by means of their propagation.</p> <p>If positive effects are seen as being essentially non-reciprocal to their negative complement, then it is possible that the balance of this difference by means of their oscillating wavelength can be countered. It would mean overcoming or effectively reversing for the entire physical structure of the transport system the gravitational Faraday effect that would be attributable to its positive mass-bound state in the universe. If this could be overcome, then it suggests the possibility that an object can be phased out and back in again, and that the normal constraints of space-time can then be overcome.</p> <p>Whether the vehicle and its contents and propulsion system could retain its structural integrity and remain intact, or whether it is even really possible, remains unanswered. In such a system, if it were possible, one might imagine traveling vast distance "out of time" and without a relevance to normal spatial-gravitational constraints. Greater than light speeds might be obtained.</p> <p>The purpose of such a system would be in its design to neutralize the effects of the normal space-time constraints by some kind of "anti-gravity" device. It would by means of the rapid rotation of the main disk and by means perhaps of applying some kind of electro-magnetic field to the disk, achieve a reversal of the positive effects of the vehicle's normal space-time properties. More conventional propulsion systems might still be applied to permit the craft to move about and maneouver. I propose an omni-directional system of propulsion derived from hydrogen-plasma. Such a vehicle would then exist "out of time" though remaining in space, perhaps invisibly.</p> <p>I believe at this stage that such a transportation system is something more than science fiction. It emerges as a heuristic possibility of the theory elaborated within these pages. It is possible, if the theory about the non-reciprocal positive propagation of physical matter and energy is correct, and if these effects, analogous in natural systems to the Faraday effect, is possible. If we can reverse this effect, or create a reciprocal system for its positive physical manifestation, then it is possible that we can effectively cancel the normal effects of space-time upon a vehicle. Because this is not normally observed in natural reality does not necessarily therefore render it impossible. The paradox is that such a system might not be so difficult to implement as we might expect, once we figure out exactly how to do it. How much energy might be needed to do so is an unknown. It may become a matter eventually of simply flipping a switch.</p> <p>Technically, such a system would not travel faster than the speed of light. It would just cancel out the normal constraints that restrict any physically occurring phenomena within the limits of light speed, hence of gravitation, normal time and entropy, thereby making "instantaneous" transportation possible in any direction. It is likely that such a system would not be perfect or complete. The cancellation of the normal constraints of space-time may in fact be only partially realizable, which might entail that the system is semi-bound within the space-time manifold. Nevertheless, it might make possible much more rapid movement at far greater efficiency and at far less energy expenditure than is presently possible with conventional propulsion systems.</p> <p>As far as I can tell, this might perhaps be our only possible means for overcoming the physical constraints that beset us at every point.</p> <hr> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Chapter VII</p> </font><font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Gravitational Unification & Spin Synchronization</p> </font><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Complementary Instantaneity & Already Unified Field lines</p> </font> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><b><font size="6">A</font></b>ccording to the cosmological model of the dynamic state universe, a spime-mechanical model of the space-time construct construes gravitation to be a variable set of phenomena that can be understood in several ways. It apparently involves a form of radiation that is very close to electromagnetism though without apparent charge effects. It appears to create transverse waves or ripples in space-time, and leads to the oblation of distant objects. Gravity appears by the spime induction model to be the fluid pressure effect of the space-time manifold around gravitationally concentric systems. Motion itself can be construed as a translation effect of space-time that appears to carry the object to its destiny within a gravitationally unified and dynamic field. Gravitation can also be construed as a kind of universal binding force that holds the entire system together upon many levels, and in this regard appears to be instantaneous in its effects. "Attraction at a distance" must occur on some level, if we are to presuppose an instantaneous-state universe that holds itself together across the expanses of absolute space. The alternative would be a universe that is defined only within the normal space-time constraints as we physically experience these things, and results in insuperable conundrums of co-occurring systems in gravitational independence of one another.</p> <p>I have hypothesized the concept of gravitational unification to explain the phenomenal integration of physical reality upon all levels of stratified organization. The entire universe is gravitationally unified in some complex and dynamic way, as are all subsystems within the universe. I seek to explain this concept of gravitational unification in terms of an established system of omni-directional field lines that emanate infinitely from all possible points in the universe at the same time. These field lines exist in a negative state of unrealized potential energy and are in a basic sense magnetic. There are nonreciprocal constraints that affect their positive-state realization as physical forms. I furthermore seek to explain this in terms of isotopic and unitary spin synchronization, or magnetic spin-spin harmonic resonance, that must occur at multiple levels, and can be extended by the concept of unitary spin to embrace symmetrical state universes.</p> <p>Harmonic spin synchronization results in, or is systemically tied to, a model of universal attraction, or what can be called an attractive-state universe, that results in the complex phenomena that we refer to as gravitational unification. The tunneling effect of photonic propagation of light is exactly a hole effect created by the transmission of light fields in the spime matrix. Spime appears to be almost perfectly transparent to light, primarily because of its low mass to high energy ratio and because of its charge. Charge appears to be a means of "unbinding" the normal structure of spime that remains normally mass bound--hence, a charged particle will not appear to obey the normal gravitational field lines in the way that a normal particle of uncharged mass will.</p> <p>We can explain the concept of gravitational equilibrium, that all gravity systems seek some relative state of harmonic balance of mass and motion, in terms of the concept of gravitational unification and relative displacement. Any system that exhibits relative gravitational displacement, in terms of acceleration, or alternatively, charge, results in disequilibrium and resistance of disturbed gravitational field lines. The consequence is for these field lines to establish some state-trajectory stability, no matter how dynamic, in a manner that is fundamentally non-thermodynamic in character. In this sense, the constant of lightspeed in normal space-time is probably the speed, given light's constant charge-to mass ratio, at which light as a field system achieves relative gravitational equilibrium, or unification. We can picture the field lines connected to the path trajectory of light as a kind of saddle-point vector. In other words, the speed of light is the normal measure of natural resistance that light experiences within the spime manifold of empty space. If it experienced no such resistance, its speed would probably be instantaneous.</p> <p>Gravitational equilibrium is in a sense equivalent to a form of charge balance--we only understand charge in terms of its relative states of imbalance. We only understand gravity in terms of its relative terms of gravitational-mass imbalance. The effects are the same, because ultimately they stem from the same causes, and that is the unification of field lines through spin synchronization of the elements involved in the transaction.</p> <p>Gravitational imbalance can only be understood in terms of concentrically unified gravitational systems, or what I refer to as the internally organized spime matrix common to matter, that creates a boundary zone of disquilibrium with its surrounding manifold. The gravitational field lines are permanently distorted in a predictable way, a way that describes the normal and expected geodesic curvature of space-time in gravity systems. In such distorted regions, spime flows in the direction of the gradient towards the gravitational center of balance--it is seeking equilibrium naturally, just as negatively charged particles will flow naturally toward positively charged ions.</p> <p>We can imagine the interpenetration of symmetrically contraposed universes, a physical state-universe, and an anti-universe of exactly opposite structure, as being the result of the coexistence of opposite spin-field line systems within the same negative-space construct.</p> <p>It is my conclusion that, like the wind in the trees, the gravity in the waves is the evidence for a kind of kinetic spime-molecular action at a level that is below that of the fundamental elementary particles. At this level, we cannot speak of particles so much as "event-energy-entities" in some quantum physical scheme of superposition.</p> <p>Gravitational disequilibrium only appears in a Machian sense when there is imbalance between alternative gravity systems. It is as if wind becomes apparent only in its effects on mass objects, and arises as the result of interaction between a high and low-pressure area. In this sense, spime-pressure theory can be understood in precisely the same manner. Spime flows from areas of high to low pressure, the pressure differential being created by gravitational disequilibrium between positive and negative states. I speculate furthermore that such gravitational disequilibrium is the result of the creation of more gravitational field lines about a massive object. I believe we can understand gravitational radiation as the propagation of negative field lines that represent low pressure, or depressurization of systems in gravitationally dynamic ways (gravitational entropy) that is the consequence of the high pressurization of spime induction into the gravitational center. Such a system becomes gravitationally balanced. We may speculate therefore, that in the grand scheme of things, there is a net conservation or balance of gravitational energy, such that negative gravitational energy is always somewhere and somehow complemented by positive gravitational energy.</p> <p>In this sense, charge is a form of dissociated gravitation, or gravitational energy that is mass unbound. Being mass unbound, it does not strictly obey the same gravitational dynamics of gravitational systems, but interacts with such systems. Light fields appear to behave independently of gravitation to the degree that these are charged systems (i.e., relatively mass unbound systems.) Cyclotronic resonance suggests the possibility that charge-to-mass ratios may be manipulated, to create effective mass, through strong electro-magnetic fields.</p> <p>Several things may be said about gravitational radiation:</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. It may propagate faster than the speed of light.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. It is independent of the gravity system that produced it.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. It carries off positive energy from a system entropically (e.g., as in a black hole) in balance to the negative gravitational energy inducted into such a system.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">4. Gravitational radiation underlies and composes all other forms of energy fields.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">5. Gravitation may constitute a well system composed of omni-directional and infinite field lines that are constituted by smaller and smaller field lines.</p> <p>We can speculate on a certain property of mass-spin that is borrowed from the mechanical model of isotopic unitary spin. We can say that in gravitationally unified systems, the spin frequency of the constituent spime entities that compose such a system are in harmonic resonance, and that higher mass systems have higher mass-frequency spins, and hence radiate energy at higher frequencies than lower mass systems. Gravitational unification leads from lower to higher spin states. Higher mass-spin states cannot go to a lower mass-spin state without shedding off a great deal of kinetic energy. Lower mass-spin states can only go to a higher mass-spin state by means of absorbing energy, which it does so from the surrounding space-time manifold by means of field-line disruption. We experience this, in the case of falling objects, as acceleration.</p> <p>These types of interactions appear to be non-thermodynamic, because thermodynamic principles would lead to the expectation of high spin states seeking lower spin states. We can only explain this system in the context of the field lines of the surrounding spime manifold in which such spin states occur. Such spin states are already in relative equilibrium with the spime gravitational field lines that embed them in a continuous way. In a sense, the equilibrium is intrinsic to the field lines themselves, hence, "resistance" is minimal. Spin states draw off kinetic energy from the manifold that is negative. They are maintained indefinitely or perpetually by means of their intrinsic momentum or inertia. They produce gravitational energy to the same extent that they induce negative energy--hence such a system is naturally reciprocal. Disturbance of such a system by the introduction of imbalance results in non-reciprocal transition field effects. As long as mass-spin states remain gravitationally bound, their relative action is permanent and very stable.</p> <p>We can see radioactive decay relating to weak energy fields as the inherent entropy of such systems. We must understand such systems from the standpoint of nucleonic spin states that are constituent and relatively permanent entities.</p> <p>We may say that charge binding is a relatively mass unbound state, such that charge binding is essentially equivalent to mass. Charge is a relatively mass dissociated state--the decay of the neutron into a proton and an electron, producing an anti-neutrino, demonstrates the relationship of gravitational force, strong forces, weak forces and electromagnetic forces all in one potential system that is gravitationally unified within a spime-matrix. Weak forces hold charge-bound states together, while strong forces hold mass-bound states together. Weak binding forces, which are charged interactive forces, occur within the nucleon within a strong-bound field. This co-occurrence can lead to instability hence decay of a neutron system into a hydrogen isotopic system. Strong forces would continue to maintain a proton as a stable charged entity and the proton would continue to emit partial gravitational radiation--what might be referred to as protonic gravitation, versus neutronic gravitation. I will speculate that there is also a form of electronic gravitation that is very weak and that is connected to the gravitational patterns of light propagation. We must understand the entire nucleonic structure of an atom from the standpoint of its relative complex spin unification of constituent entities that exist in differential states. Electromagnetism arises as a consequence of the charge dissociation of mass or the mass dissociation of charge, just as gravitational radiation is the consequence of the mass unification of charge. These occur in unified field systems in which energy is continuously exchanged along field lines.</p> <p>We may speculate on the possibility that for any system, the intrinsic relative charge to mass ratio may change interdependently, but their product is always equal to one. We may speculate that this relationship is related to the equivalence of mass to energy. Mass is the measure of gravitational potential of an object just as temperature is the measure of its energy state. Static charge is the equivalent of inertia of mass. Dynamic charge is the equivalent of momentum. Charge imbalance is the equivalent of gravitational disequilibrium that results in acceleration. An explosion accelerates an object by creating gravitational disequilibrium of the object. It momentarily disequilibriates the space-time continuum, thereby accelerating the object gravitationally in a direction. We see this as pressure created by the force of gases acting upon the object. I would suggest that they are actually acting upon the space-time manifold of the object, disrupting its gravitational field lines.</p> <p>Electromagnetic energy is thermodynamically entropic precisely because it is mass unbound and charge bound energy. Mass and gravitational energy may be non-thermodynamically entropic because it is mass bound and charge unbound.</p> <p>In understanding the structure of space-time and the origin of the cosmos, it becomes an important question as to answer the natural spontaneous origin of nucleonic particles from the background field of spime, independent of any co-occurring gravity systems. This must relate to the question of the origin of radioactive and thermodynamic energy from the negative energy field of the spime matrix. To ask which came first is a hen and egg dilemma. Did nucleonic matter create energy, or did energy create nucleonic matter? If energy is created only in relation to nucleonic matter, and nucleonic matter was only created by means of energy, then which came first. The answer is of course that they arose simultaneously as a differentiated system in the universe by means of the gravitational dissociation of spime that created both nucleonic entities and associated energies at the same time. The production process must still be occurring in the intergalactic voids of space-time, though we do not have a picture of a static, timeless, steady state universe.</p> <p>We may speculate that in the otherwise random flow of the universe, there exist currents and eddies of space-time. It is possible that two currents can flow from opposite directions and produce convolutions and involutions of space-time. These involutions would create states of local gravitational disequilibrium from which internalized spime matrices would be produced in the form of nucleonic entities derived from what I refer to as nth-particulates, which should be considered as equivalent to quarks. Quarks are the stuff of space-time, and the strings that unite quarks in a nuclear structure are the same field lines that unite spime in externalized matrices.</p> <p>In intergalactic regions of space, the currents of spime flow outwardly, rather than inwardly in proximity to gravitationally concentric systems. In such regions, space is literally being pulled apart in multiple opposite directions. There is therefore hypothesized to be a universal interstitial turbulence of space-time that result in recurrent eddies that produce nucleonic energy-entities on a continuous and random basis.</p> <p>In a sense, as space-time gets pulled apart, it draws on the negative energy reservoir to produce new spime--leading to a continously expanding, and depressurizing manifold. This depressurization would be experienced as the deflation of the gravitational constant.</p> <p>Because these entities are of relatively low spin states, as determined by the negative gravitational pressures in which they occur, they produce radiation of low frequency. As nucleonic particles coalesce into semi-structured nebulae, they tend to produce energy of shorter wavelengths--at the level of microwave radiation.</p> <p>From this model, we can speculate upon red shift once again. As light enters the intergalactic regions of space, it passes through regions defined by lower gravitational spin states, and hence loses its energy to this manifold as it naturally seeks unification with its instantaneous field.</p> <p>To answer the question from this model of where the universe ultimately came from, we must invoke a model of a meta-state universe. We must conclude that spime being produced in the empty manifold of intergalactic space, is being created from an apparent nothingness that is derivative of some larger but as yet unknown system. I speculate that the system is in operation much more stable and in universal equilibrium because most gravitational and thermodynamic energy eventually sheds off and returns to the external manifold of space-time upon the outer-limits of the universe. The fact of universal entropy, whether it is understood gravitationally or thermodynamically, entails that we must consider some larger meta-state system.</p> <p>If we speculate that there is universal conservation of all known energies, we can speculate that in some larger meta-state system, there is net balance or conservation of energy exchange. If our positive-state universe appears to be continuously expanding and gravitationally deflating, then there is likely to be some alternate-state universe that may be symmetrically contracting and gravitationally inflating.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>I speculate that synchronization of clocks in the universe is only achievable by a process that I call spime integration. It is at the level of order that space and time become unified as both an instantaneous and a universal construct. Another way of saying this is that spime achieves spatialized expression at the level of its self-realization. The spime matrix universally coheres at the same instant as a space-time construct. This is how we normally see space-time. I believe that the spatialized realization or unification of spime is at least 5th to nth dimensional. Time itself is therefore inherently dynamic and complex. It may be a multidimensional vector that can only be understood as the complex function of an uncertain number of other dimensions.</p> <p>The universal coherence of spime is expressed spatio-temporally as simultaneity of all co-occurring phenomenal event patterns in the universe. Universal simultaneity can never be proven, it can only be inferred by our theoretical model of the universe. What we experience is really only a retrograde simultaneity. The phenomenal appearance of simultaneity can be said to be immediately instantaneous, and then to regress as a function of distance. Another way of saying this is that simultaneous change events can only happen relativistically in the intermediate phenomenal experience of the universe. Thus, we see what perhaps seems to be an expanding universe when in fact it is really a relativistic change event. The star 20 light years away may in fact have just exploded into smithereens, but we will not know this for another 20 years. Still, we infer the instantaneous coexistence of the star at the immediate time. We must do so, if we are to have a coherent cosmological model. This is a fundamental aspect of our physical observational relativity.</p> <p>We can validly infer universal simultaneity based upon our presupposition of universal congruence. What appears to occur in our world, in our solar system and in our galaxy, is by logical and mathematical extension similar to what occurs in the entire universe on some fundamental level. If we cannot validly make this reference, then ultimately we have no foundation for physical science at all. We see order in the universe. This order allows us to make predictions, even if we cannot know the exact immediate state of all simultaneous change events in the universe. Because our predictions are mostly correct and accurate within our small corner of the universe on very basic levels, we must therefore assume that they are applicable to the larger sense of at least the observable universe.</p> <p>The inference of a negative gravitational field that exists out of time, or beyond normal space-time constraints, is derived from our inference of universal congruence of a simultaneous universe. An integrated spime matrix must achieve its integration in some way. The continuity of this matrix is deeper that the relativistic constraints our theories want to impose upon it.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>If we understand light always to naturally occur as a system in the universe, one that is inherently thermodynamic in any given area of any given size, we might apply similar principles to the understanding of the structure and texture of our hypothesized spime construct itself. Spime is alleged to exhibit fluid like properties, and yet to have properties as well that are not characteristic of fluid as we understand these to be. Just as light of any given volume and intensity occurs as a system, we can say that spime also coheres into a system as well, albeit at another level. We can say that the quantum like entities of spime yield up their particularistic properties in their normally occurring matrices for the sake of achieving an integrated system.</p> <p>I will speculate that electromagnetic radiation and other forms of energy are essentially composed of positive gravitational energy constituted by the structure of spime itself.</p> <p>In a sense, energy is a composite system, in which quanta at one level of the energy system are constituted by the spin binding of quanta at lower levels that yield up their properties in a particularistic way to the energy system of the higher level. I would say therefore that positive gravitational radiation is the basic energy force upon which all known positive energies occurring in the universe are based.</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR7.ht49.gif" width="507" height="179"></p> <p>Every known positive form of energy must have some associated particulate entity and its opposite that exists in some spin bound state. In other words, we know that photons are linked to electrons, and the weak force is linked to neutrinos, and the strong force to muons. I conjecture therefore that gravitational radiation, or what are not as gravitons, are linked to a particulate entity on a very basic level that I call gravitoids. I would say that gravitoids, furthermore, are closely associated with spime in its normally occurring configurations. Furthermore, each particulate entity that is associated with energy is always a partial derivative of the energy that created it, such that its creation always yields some residual energy. At the same time, once a particulate entity is created, it is usually not destroyed completely as such, but can yield multiple quanta of energy of its associated kind.</p> <p>We talk about the conversion of energy to matter, and the conversion of matter to energy, as never complete or total, but always partial. This is demanded by thermodynamics, and it illustrates how thermodynamics underlies all energy-based systems. A particulate entity as a spin-bound resonance system, functions as a machine that aquires or builds energy from its surrounding reservoir--it draws upon the negative field lines that connects that entity to the universe. As such, for the duration of its life, it regularly or periodically resonates energy along the same field lines. Energy used in creating such a system is never perfectly transformed as such. Its conversion into a spin bound system is always partial and always yields residual energy. If we can understand that a photon is always part of an energy system, and cannot exist independent as such except in the form of its spin bound state as an electron. This independent existence is always partial, and the entity remains essentially embedded in the same energy system from which it arose and was created in the first place.</p> <p>I will claim that in our universe, gravitation is the minimal positive energy force we know, and the speed of gravitation is both greater than the speed of light by an unknown amount and therefore defines a compass of instantaneous expression that is greater than the speed of light. Light travels within a gravitational field, and indirectly is composed of that field, but the gravitational field always encompasses the light that it contains. No light therefore can occur beyond or outside of the gravitational field that encompasses it. The gravitational field defines the relative frame of reference for all positive energy systems.</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR7.ht50.gif" width="674" height="289"></p> <p> </p> <p>In the diagram represented above, we can see a model for the rise of particularistic and stable mass-bound entities from a negative well system of gravitational energy. We can describe a corresponding pathway for the accretion and rise of mass-based energy systems, or solar systems, that appear common and ubiquitous in the universe. As we climb the hypothetical funnel to higher energy levels, we deal with more saturated and denser energy systems.</p> <p>Just as no volume of spime in the universe is without some kind of energy system, the same volume is also not without some kind of gravitational field system that underlies and defines that energy system in basic ways. I think this gravitational system shares many affinities with the derivative energy systems that are based upon it. In any given sphere, we can define a complex system that is composed of an aggregate pattern derived from all points within the entire universe. Like energy systems, it appears to exist in time, or as a function of change dynamics through time. We can speculate that even if we were able to hypothetically remove all other forms of energy from a closed system, we would still have to contend with the self-gravitational energies inherent to that system enclosed.</p> <p>At the level of spime, there occur limits of zero-gravitation, which can be observed to be a state of Absolute Rest, and limits of maximum gravitation, or maximum disequilibriation of the gravitational field. In this sense, gravitation defines a unified field system of non-particularistic qualities. We cannot have an individual graviton that exists outside of such a field.</p> <p>The effects of gravitation are only observable in the motion and interaction between mass-objects and the surrounding space-time manifolds in which these are embedded. Residual effects are also evident upon energy systems themselves, to the extent that these systems can be shaped in their intermediate pathways by gravitational patterns. These effects are the result of the disequilibriation patterns arising from differential energy gradients. But we can infer the presence of gravitational energy in the normal occurrence of space-time only by means of these effects. It seems that the real function of gravitation, or rather its normal expression, is in the normal congruence of space-time itself.</p> <p>We might say that the invisibility of this normal expression of gravitation is due to the consequence of this effect underlying and being essential to the expression of thermodynamic radiation. It is self-canceling because it is reciprocal, and it is this reciprocity of exchange relations, or symmetry, which renders it negative as an integrated force field. It normally exists therefore beyond the compass of our observational sphere.</p> <p>Below gravitation as we normally experience this, there may be negative energy forces that define the complementary field lines that are associated with each level of energy occurring in the positive universe. I conjecture that these constitute the foundational field lines that unite the universe on a very essential level of ordering. If we were to isolate these negative energies as particulate entities, then perhaps we would see on one level things like nth particulates or wxyz infinitesimals, but in fact it appears that in their normal state of occurrence they, as negative energies, are without any particularistic form.</p> <p>We can only perhaps infer their particularity derived from what properties we can infer upon them by superposition. In fact, superposition itself may not work at this level--such entities would be essentially unobservable on a sub-quantum level. We might state that the properties these hypothetical entities exhibit are fundamentally non-differentiable. In other words they may exist in a continuous state of transition within a stochastic framework. Association of distinctive properties to such "entities" could only arise therefore in state-coupling or transition relation with other entitites as an event or phenomena. They would exhibit no stable or permanent property states. We might say mathematically that the set or system of such entities would be a continuum that would have no cardinality, though cardinality might be inferred for such a set.</p> <p>It follows that only by going below the level of spime can we realize negative energy states. These, by our hypothesis of universal simultaneity, would be the equivalent of complementary field lines that propagate faster than the speed of light.</p> <p>We might speculate that for every realized positive state that is definable in terms of some set of associated properties and a sense of event permanence or predictability, there is a complementary negative state that defines that state relationship and articulation with the all other alternative and simultaneously occurring states. In the largest sense possible, this occurs instantaneously with the entire universe.</p> <p>Even normal gravitation that we cannot directly see actually appears to be such a negative energy state. It is the transition between gravity from an invisible negative field in space-time to an active force in matter that appears to me to mark the fundamental boundary between negative and positive in the universe. We can say that our hypothetical entity of spime achieves its particularity only in non-reciprocal conjunction with other spime in internalized states of matter as a result of mass-charge binding.</p> <p>The conjecture of more basic negative energy states, and hypothetical "non-particles" that I dub particulates and infinitesimals only arises really from the superposition of the principles of universal congruence and simultaneity upon the universe. If we cannot conclude deductively that the universe is simultaneously co-occurring--that it does not exist as a whole in a contemporaneous state, then we would not need to conjecture about negative or complementary forces at work in the background of the system. The universe appears to hang together in a coordinated fashion even if we cannot instantly observe it all. We infer this from what sense of permanency and continuity of change relationships that does occur. If it does hang together, beyond all light, and perhaps even beyond gravitation itself, then it must do so on the basis of some conjectural quintessential energy force field which can be said to underlie and compose these derivative varieties.</p> <p>Entities can only gain faster than light speeds or even universal instantaneity, if they give up their property of particularity all together, and yield themselves to a universal system that occurs simultaneously in as wide a compass as possible. This does not appear to happen all at once or in any absolute way, but diminishes or vanishes and therefore arises or emerges from the background structure of the universe automatically but progressively. Spime-gravitation appears to me to be the minimal positive differentiation that this process must achieve before it can be even indirectly inferred by our observations, and this is only because at this stage it assumes an internalized matrix state. It strikes me that negative differentiational qualities of these sub-entities in the universe must define the boundaries of the universe itself, and the order in which the universe normally occurs. If we hypothesize wxyz infinitesimals, it is possible that these infinitesimals occur in alternative form only across certain thresholds of physical reality that we cannot even directly infer. If we hypothesize nth-particulates, it appears to me that these nth-particulates are prerequisite for the positive differentiation of spime and all positively occurring particles. Different particulates in different configurations give rise to different positive states. In a sense, these particulates define the quantum and quantifiable background in which such positive states are evident in nature.</p> <p>I believe that we can possibly look upon gravitation not as a single force, but as a composite negative force that occurs at the interface between positive and negative realities. As such, it may occur at certain phase levels that are discrete, and yet at each level is continuous. In other words, gravitation itself may be a compound and stratified force that occurs simultaneously upon multiple levels, suggested by the diagram below:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR7.ht51.gif" width="645" height="468"></p> <p> </p> <p>It may in fact occur in an infinite number of diminishing levels, each weaker by an order of magnitude than the former force. It would define a gradational weakening of gravitational force with the progressive distance between sources, and with increasing levels of gravitational focus. It describes a stratified-state universe that is distributed upon multiple tiers based upon the level of gravitational energy that occurs. If there is no end to the vanishing point of gravity in the universe, then we can see that in larger and larger frameworks, gravity is based on larger and larger orders of magnitude of relative mass, but is far weaker in order.</p> <p>This kind of model suggests several things about gravity. Its power is cumulative on discrete levels based upon the constituent levels of component particulates that are ascribable to the level it occurs at. Such constituent elements occurs as the result of spin binding of lower level elements that confers increasing gravitational attraction to the larger entity. The minimal kind of construct is a 2 by 2, 3 by 3 or 4 by 4 process of spin-parity binding.</p> <p>It suggests a kind of process in which larger components are composed of smaller similar kinds of components in a kind of non-linear equation. The smaller the particulate, the weaker the gravitational force as a whole and the less particularity can be ascribed to the entity.</p> <p>We can borrow from chaos theory to derive a simple kind of formula to represent abstractly the kind of process conjectured to be occurring.</p> <p>If we were to model such a universe, it would look something like the following:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR7.ht52.gif" width="654" height="375"></p> <p> </p> <p>The diagram above represents a universe that would be represented by a 4 by 4 by 4 model, though we could imagine any possible combination, such as 2 by 3 by 4, or so on, ad infinitum. In this model, the weaker the gravity, the wider the region of its compass, the greater its instantaneity, and the greater the total mass of its unification, such that</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">G - M = 1</p> <p>The weaker gravity would occur within the stronger gravitational fields, but would be effectively neutralized or else effectively unnoticeable by the overpowering effects of the stronger but more local gravitational influences. The actual magnitudes that may be involved in this process are probably great.</p> <p>It suggests that at each level of gravitational force, there will be a limit of distance reached that is defined by the inherent potential of the gravity. At some point in distance from a common center, a point is reached whereby the weak gravity of the center gives way, or fractures at the interstices.</p> <p>We can imagine an overall shape to our own sub-universe as possibly looking like below:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR7.ht53.gif" width="597" height="492"></p> <p> </p> <p>In larger sub-universe models, it can be expected that a gravitational vortex exists at the center, without a common center of mass, but which has the effect of spreading the universe to its margins, an apparent expansion rather than contraction to the center. The universe would describe a huge fat disc that is relatively rounded in the center. The universe would be spiraling in time. In such a vortex, we might expect that the sub-universe is literally pulling matter in from some other sub-universe.</p> <p>This picture of a universe that is in a sense flooding out from a central gravitational vortex, or possibly from multiple interstitial vortexes, comes as something of a paradox in the sense that we are used to seeing gravitation in relation to large mass-objects that are focal to a system. A gravitational vortex can be seen as a kind of well system in the understanding of the structure of the universe. We can say in a sense that strong gravitational fields diffuse with distance in a predictable way, but weak gravitational fields increase in strength with distance in an inverse manner. With increasing area, it can be expected that stronger fields will always give way to weaker fields that serve to unite the universe within a larger framework.</p> <p>A gravitational vortex can be pictured below:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR7.ht54.gif" width="577" height="273"></p> <p> </p> <p>While in a conventional well system we would expect that things would fall toward the center, as if down into a deep well, in a gravitational vortex, things are actually pushed in a centrifugal fashion outward and away from the center. Such an effect is more easily pictured in the inverted diagram in the lower left corner. In this we can say that stronger gravitational forces that are locally concentric about some center of mass, will tend to gravitate outwardly and towards the periphery of the system, and their gravitational strength will tend to unify all mass occurring within the outer limits of such a system.</p> <p>Furthermore, the effects of the concentrated mass at the periphery would tend to reinforce the central or interstitial vortex, by pulling apart the space-time manifold and by means of mutual interference from all directions. We can really picture well gravity as occurring at the center of a sphere that is expanding in all directions:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht55.gif" width="414" height="270"></p> <p>We thus have an expanding universal system that is as a model very similar to the big bang hypothesis, but instead of the hot big bang, we can speculate that it is rather a cold and rather slow process of expansion. The flooding out of space-time from the vortex would be observable at the interstices of the cluster systems. It did not happen all at once, but continuously over time.</p> <p>If this model is an accurate one, we can speculate possibly that such spreading out will accelerate with increasing expansion, and it will reach at the perimeter of the system light speed upon a vanishing horizon. It can be speculated that at that point, it will slip over the "edge of the universe" in the reality sphere, and reemerge in a parallel inverse universe. Thus we are in such a system observing a movement of mass up a gradient of increasing gravity in relationship to speed. It suggests a relativity of gravitation.</p> <p>It must be speculated that weak gravity, or well gravity, does not require a gravitational center of mass for its expression, but rather exists without such a center.</p> <p>The expansion of the system to the margins of the disc would be limited by the weakness of the gravitational force (negative gravitational pressure) and the counteraction of the combined gravity of the super-cluster units occurring in this disc. At the limit, pull from the super-clusters would tend to draw all matter and space-time itself to the margin from the surrounding region.</p> <p>In such a model, the effects of any gravity system would be organized in zones, and it is expected that there would occur interstitial regions between the zones where negative gravitational energies would be strong and where matter might be pulled apart or rendered into gaseous streams or corridors.</p> <p>The zones I have divided up into the core, where the center of balance of gravity is at work, the primary zone surrounding this core, and a peripheral zone, followed by an outer limit that is defined by increasingly negative gravitational energies, at some point of which an inchoate interstitial zone develops consisting of matter that is pulled apart and without a gravitational center of balance.</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR7.ht56.gif" width="653" height="245"></p> <p>Most gravitational cells, at whatever level, can be expected to exhibit a planer effect at its outer limits, and a spherical core zone with a disc shaped primary zone. All cells can be expected to be spiraling.</p> <p>We can imagine a gigantic cosmic egg at the center of a sub-universe that forms a solid core zone as a gravitational vortex that results in a gigantic gravitational explosion.</p> <p>Thus, clusters and galaxies might define themselves in a kind of mosaic of matter and space-time, in huge space-time cells. We can expect that at different levels of this process, different kinds of organizational patterns would appear, and secondary effects of different forms would be apparent.</p> <p>We can expect a possibly linear formula occurring that defines increasing distance with decreasing gravitational powers or orders of magnitude, and also an exponential increase in the amount of mass involved in the system described.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>I have come to consider what the negative spime field consists of, and I believe that our doorway into seeing and understanding this is through the understanding of magnetism. Of course, the kinds of magnetic fields we observe are those that are in relation to electricity and electromagnetic radiation and ferromagnetism. I would say that the attraction between two ferromagnets is more than analogous to that of gravitation. I believe it is homologous in the same way that we might understand the centrifugal effects of momentum to be similar to gravitation. I believe that magnetism is the product of specific magnetic resonances, and leads to the creation of field lines in spime. This entails that magnetic resonance should result in signals that are propagated through the spime matrix, just as gravitation creates these signals. If this is a correct interpretation, then we can see that gravitational radiation produces quite strong gravi-magnetic field lines that are implicated in spime flow patterns. If we see an explosion, we must guess that at the very heart of that explosion represents a minor disruption of spime in a chaotic way. This disruption is instantaneous of course.</p> <p>It appears that gravitational field lines as they occur in space-time, are comparable, indeed, are a variant of, magnetic field lines as these occur in normal electromagnetic radiation. I believe this insight gives us a critical handle to both understanding and eventually being able to control gravitation as a naturally occurring form of energy. I would say that magnetic field lines are essentially equivalent to the normal gravitational field lines that structure space-time. The mutual attraction of two ferromagnets is virtually the same force that causes the mutual attraction of two gravitating bodies, albeit the former exhibits dipole charge characteristics, while the latter exhibits quadripolar charge neutral characteristics. They can be understood as arising from magnetic resonance and spin-synchronization of parallel & similar-state particulates. The exact systematic nature of these field lines remains a mystery, though it is conjectured that they represent the continuous directed action of nth-particulates in normal space-time. We can look at it as the normal manner in which the universe maintains its space-time integrity by means of a continuous communication between similar kinds of unitary constructs. In normal space-time, with ideally no gravitational fields arising from large mass-objects, it is expected that these field lines that are already present, are essentially omni-directionally occurring in a random way. They arise as a result of their own possibilistic relativity by the fact of the existence of unitary phenomena. If a gravitating body is introduced into such a system, then the field lines would be focused upon the core of this body at least upon one level of their occurrence. It is expected that gravitation of this body will occur in normal space-time, even if no other physical mass-objects exist to interact with it. This can be deduced directly from observations of our own earth system and neighboring systems that conform in exactly the same way.</p> <p>In a sense, field lines are essentially "potential" lines that coexist with equal deterministic probability, and that are infinite in extent. In their most basic sense, to the extent that we can associate the property of direction to them by means of superposition, we can say that they are infinitely geodesic in extent. They can be said to be the arrangement of the sub-spime substrate as a result of the interaction between spime and the positive non-reciprocal things it contains, like matter and energy. If our model of spontaneous regeneration of the universe is true, then it is probably true as well that spime not only interacts with matter and energy, but with itself in alternate states. Spime must be seen as a heterogeneous construct, and not just as a uniform field. The complex self-interaction of spime with itself gives rise, among other things, to the possibility and nonreciprocal creation of energy and matter in the first place.</p> <p>The field lines themselves form a kind of well field system, such that we can speculate that field lines on one level are really like bundles of finer field lines composed of sub-levels, and so on an on ad-infinitum. In the realization of the property of propagative direction, or what we might say, direct connection between receiver and source, we can say that knowledge of other properties of the propagative system, such as the property of integration or cross-section or dispersion, are yielded, or given up. The thicker the field lines, the more energetic, and the shorter the distance they connect.</p> <p>We can imagine that any mass object would have to bisect a proportionately greater number of field lines across the board in order to achieve propagative direction and speed of light. Such a system could not easily change or shift directions without requiring a great deal of energy to overcome the momentum established in the system, which would approach infinitude.</p> <p>Any mass is, essentially, determined by the number of field lines that connect that system as a nucleonic conglomeration, to the larger system. It is a continuum measure of pressure that system exerts upon space-time, or resistance to pressure, that space-time exhibits upon that system. Light can be said to have nominal mass such that at any particular moment, the minimal number of field lines connect a photon to a larger system. Field lines that connect phenomena to the larger system can be conceptualized in different ways. I would normally construe them in the way that magnetism is seen as arcs or circles emanating from the central axis of the system.</p> <p>We can say that with light, field lines do not connect that system in the direction of propagation, exactly, but only transverse to this direction. In any mass system, there are essentially two sets of gravitational field lines that are created by the major axis of rotation and a minor axis that is perpendicular to the axis of rotation and is defined along the plane of rotation. We might picture this as in the following diagram of a simple magnetic system.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht57.gif" width="587" height="203"></p> <p>Light would be analogous to this system, in the sense that it would represent such a system, but one that is essentially open-ended in one direction:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht58.gif" width="577" height="264"></p> <p> </p> <p>One consequence of this would be, I believe, can only be better described if we imagine the difference between a magnetic and gravitational field system, such that a gravitational system has two poles rather than one with a main axis perpendicular to its rotational axis.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht59.gif" width="434" height="186"></p> <p>Any mass system, including light or a ferromagnet, would exhibit a similar gravitational field about its main axis. The closer one comes to such a system, the more gravitational field lines one would encounter, and hence the stronger the gravitational force exerted. Gravitation only exerts itself upon mass objects. The further one goes from such a system, in any direction, the more the field lines become straight. In any direction, omni-directionally the field lines would become fewer and straighter in relation to the core axis of the object.</p> <p>Light would exhibit unusual gravitational field lines because it would propagate in one direction along its minor axis. Light is furthermore a non-reciprocal system. The normal curvature of light in space-time would result in what is comparable to a Faraday affect, of the non-reciprocal rotation of the axis of gravitation of light. Space-time as we understand this would not curve--light curves in space-time, as a result of its nonreciprocal rotation as a unidirectional change field. Matter is a non-reciprocal system, like light, except that in its gravitational binding along both axii simultaneously, it creates reciprocating effects in the gravitational field. Non-reciprocal effects are only experienced at long range, as a result of mass-differences between different objects, or in terms of the unidirectional acceleration of an object of mass. When different mass sized objects approach a third object in proximity, their mass-differences become neutralized in a reciprocating gravitational field--much as if two different temperature systems would approach uniformity as they become proximate to a third higher temperature system. In fact, temperature as a measure of thermodynamic energy and mass as a measure of relative gravitational energy are equivalent to one another. Gravitation is an inherently non-thermodynamic energy as we understand this, though it exhibits properties of spime-gravitational fields that are homologous to thermodynamic properties of energy systems. Thermodynamic systems are nonreciprocal systems, whereas spime-gravitational or non-thermodynamic systems are reciprocal, except for their long distance and secondary motional effects upon matter.</p> <p>The concept of field lines is important to understanding the normal structure of spime in space-time constructs. Spime has both fluid-like qualities that arise from its constituent character, and field-like properties that arise from its spin-synchronization of field lines.</p> <p>It is evident that the kinds of gravitational field lines exhibited by electromagnetic radiation are fundamentally different in character than those field lines exhibited by normal mass-objects of great size by the fact of their charge. Except perhaps for some expected Einstein shifting, which would affect the frequency of the light, the gravitational effect along the propagative axis, which is assumed to be identical to the minor gravitational axis, would be essentially neutralized in the direction of propagation. In this direction, the magnetic field lines would become perhaps identical to the gravitational field lines along the main axis. Essentially, the non-reciprocal effects of propagation would be a continuous and steady shifting of the frequency of the light toward longer wavelengths, as if the light were steadily climbing up a hill that had a non-linear gradient. There might also be a twisting of the light in one direction that would approximate increasing non-linear curvature, to the point that the light would eventually turn back upon itself and self-neutralize. We can picture light in the long run as traveling continuously up a gradient, the slope of which defines the speed of light in normal space-time, with additional shifting proportional to the gravitational field of the object of its source transmission.</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR7.ht60.gif" width="567" height="240"></p> <p> </p> <p>In this model of light, if we were observer A, at a certain distance, we would experience light as shifting increasingly to the red end of the spectrum, with slightly increasing rotational curvature.</p> <p>We can imagine ourselves as a hypothetical observer B, at the end of the trajectory of light, at which point the shifting of light is completely to the red, at which point light can be said to fall into a path of self-dampening propagation. Even if space-time can be said to be infinitely large, light might not be capable of being transmitted these infinite distances.</p> <p>Our effect would be to see any source of light as if down the bottom of a deep well that is expanding outwardly with time. At some point in our depth, for any object, we should come to a limit at which light would appear to be self-destructive. The curvature effect of light would increase, or gradually grow.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht61.gif" width="452" height="275"></p> <p>What we may be observing with the red shift of light is the appearance of expansion of distant sources, as the result of our relative position in the vicinity of observational pont B in any given direction of our observational sphere. If this model of imperfect or nonlinear light propagation is correct, then we should reach a point or limit of observational depth in any direction we look, such that beyond this we should see a sense of a boundary. This will not be an effect attributable to the structure of our universe in any direct way, but a relative effect of the curvature of light due to its propagational properties in space-time itself. The result would be looking at light as if it traveled up a large hill. We would reach a point that we came back down the other side, at which point, light itself would seem to fall off a cliff:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR7.ht62.gif" width="644" height="328"></p> <p>It must be understood, light would not slow down, relatively speaking. It's speed would remain constant its entire trajectory. What would change would be the relative space-time continuum in which that light flowed, such that a distant source would appear to be accelerating away from the receiver until a point is reached that it appears to be coming to a standstill.</p> <p>Light would only continuously shift in frequency, until its source appeared to slow down to a complete stop at the far red end of the spectrum, at which point, the light would cross the hypothetical plane of instantaneity, and would disappear as light. We might explain Olber's paradox in this way. Furthermore, we might explain how light becomes an increasingly inaccurate measure of true or absolute spatial distance over time as determined by the plane of instantaneity. The non-linear and eventual self-dampening shift in amplitude of light would eventually result in its self-cancellation as a directional source.</p> <p>Furthermore, these field lines as they normally occur in space-time, interact with light-propagation and energy that transmits through them in interesting ways. I believe that the speed of light as a constant can be accounted for as the normal constraints that field lines, as a form of "friction" or constraint to working systems exhibits in a non-thermodynamic way upon energy systems of propagation, such that these systems must obey minimal space-time constraints. A rough way of putting this is that any unidirectional light beam must essentially transect an infinite number of field lines. Because normally occurring field lines in space-time are omni-directional and self-canceling, it can be expected that their interference with light, on average, is minimal and continuous. Actually, I would predict that the field lines are not interacting with the normal field lines of space-time in the way that we expect light to interact with magnetic field lines, but with the tunneling effect itself of light through space-time. The field lines are interacting with the mass of light as a unitary system, not with its energy. The hypothetical energy field that light creates in space-time, as a self-propagational system, are the secondary field lines that result from interaction of possibilistic states of photons as a result of their initial interaction with the minimal field lines of space-time itself. This interaction and its consequences, the creation of light fields, is defined as the speed of light.</p> <p>Though light that is positively experienced by some receiver is non-reciprocal in effect and direction, we can suggest also that the light field as this occurs as result of light propagation through space-time, is effectively a reciprocal patterning of field lines.</p> <p>To summarize, we may say that any directional motion, or the nonreciprocal realization of action in any specific direction, will tend to crosscut normally occurring spime-gravitational field lines. Then the measure of mass can be said to be the measure of the number of lines cross-sectioned or broken or bent for any given period of time. Pressure theory arises from the effect over given periods of time in a non-instantaneous manner. Point theory would be the instantaneous realization of such effects in a particularistic sense.</p> <p>The non-reciprocal effects of mass upon space-time and in space-time need to be better understood, as does the propagative patterns of light at long distance.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>I have come to a point where I believe it is important to account for a facet of phenomenal reality that relates to the question of gravitational unification and the production of field lines. In a sense, field lines at whatever level of their analysis are the expression of negative energy. Gravitational unification is achieved by means of these field lines at a basic level of spime unification. This unification is considered to be equivalent to the synchronization of the particulate entities within the field. At all level of quanta, however minimal we may decide, there is some composite particulate entity that is unified as an entity by virtue of its spin unification. This spin unification is associated with the natural production of field lines that broadcast radially from the quantum. Since we cannot at any particular instant define the exact position of such a quantum, the quanta exist as a stochastic approximation in a given range of alternative places. The field lines that the particulate entity defines would therefore be created by this range of their possibilistic state-trajectories. It is possible that at any level, field lines created by spin of a particulate entity are in fact composed of smaller entities that achieve spin unification as a result of spin-to-spin inter-harmonic resonance amplification. We might claim that all field lines are essentially magnetic field lines, and thus magnetism provides evidence for spime unification. Magnetic resonance unification of spin creates field lines because it unifies particles parallel to the axis of the spin.</p> <p>Spin binding is to be seen as very foundational to the structure of physical reality. It creates both the particularistic properties we associate with different forms of entities, and it creates the field lines emanating from these entities. These field lines, furthermore, provide the pathways along which energy becomes propagated.</p> <p>We are familiar with magnetic resonance of nucleons and of electrons. We are not so familiar perhaps with the possibility of resonance spin amplification of even more minute entities that have an even less certain particularism. To claim that the field lines themselves may in fact be composed of such entities, and that these entities may in turn produce their own field lines, and so on ad infinitum, is to cast the basic weave of the universe, its warp and weft, into a never ending well.</p> <p>The normal form of spime I would consider to consist of the following element that would represent a double bound helix structure:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht63.gif" width="123" height="160"></p> <p>The structure represented above would represent the basic form of spin-stabilization. The form below represents a structure of energy that occurs in positive form:</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht64.gif" width="123" height="204"></p> <p>The form represented above would be what I would consider to be the normal form of positive radiation that is expressed in the universe. The form pictured below would be an example of what I would call mass binding based upon parity of spin cancellation.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht65.gif" width="132" height="219"></p> <p>A single entity can be depicted as either a cone or as above. I think it doesn't make any real difference. The form on the above left can be represented like the form on the right in the following manner:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht66.gif" width="402" height="132"></p> <p>Such spin binding calls up the question of the possibility of parity being achievable between particles of opposite spin. It is not uncommon to find opposite spinning particles bound together in unity. Spin parity versus spin unity can be defined as the mutual cancellation of the spinning forces at the point of contact. I predict that this describes the basic principle of gravitational unification. The mutual center-point cancellation results in shedding of gravitational energy from the point of origin, and requires therefore a continuous accretion at the surface of the object of spime.</p> <p>It would not even be difficult to imagine multiple pairs of particulate entities bound to the same point:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht67.gif" width="257" height="258"></p> <p>It must be asked what would exist at the point of intersection in such a hypothetical construction that would be capable of holding together a pair or multiple pairs of oppositely spinning entities. We might say that at the center point is a minimal moment of angular spin momentum, and there would be some force or entity strong enough to keep two opposite entities united. We can speculate that at this unstable transition point, the field lines along the parallel spin axis become reversed in the opposite direction, achieving affective unification or spin synchronization between the two systems. If this is possible to imagine, it is also possible that odd-even pairs can be bound together in a way that maximally spaces between the entities. We might have something like the following diagram:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht68.gif" width="276" height="262"></p> <p>In fact, we might imagine almost any combination in such a manner, depending upon what was possible at the center. Each combination, it is predicted, would have its own distinctive pattern of field lines emanate from it.</p> <p>We can consider that if each bound component of such a system exhibited quantized non-particularistic properties, then the binding of the components into a unified system would confer non-particularistic properties to the whole system. The system as a unified whole would exhibit its own distinctive patterning of field lines that would be defined by its possible alternate states.</p> <p>We can say that the field lines produced by a spin-bound entity probably more or less defines a sphere that exhibits a force field of some radius from the center of the body. We can speculate further that bodies with their distinctive "shells" of field lines will arrange themselves in larger configurations in definitive patterns, that in turn confer particular kinds of distinctive properties to the larger entity. We see this clearly with elements and molecules, and it is possibly a very similar process with subatomic nuclei and their constituent elements. I have hypothesized that these constituent elements themselves may be composed of small elements I have identified as spime. I would claim that in our positive universe, spime are made of a particular kind or set of n-particulates that are composed by a certain distinctive class of wxyz infinitesimals. I would go further to claim that negative spime are composed of a complementary set of n-particulates, and that there is symmetry between these two classes of n-particulates at those of anti-spime. Furthermore, all these alternate nth-particulates are composed of combinations of wxyz infinitesimals that in turn comprise the zeroth entity. In fact, the wxyz infinitesimals may in fact be composed of nth-number of levels or orders of smaller constituent entities, approaching the zeroth entity.</p> <p>I have hypothesized a principle of stochastic attraction of similar and contraposed entities. Stochastic attraction of similar entities can explain a probabilistic differentiation of a basic entity into progressively higher levels of more distinct, and particularistic, kinds of entities with associated properties and energies. We can understand stochastic attraction as something similar to systemic unification of elements that share the same properties and pass these properties to the whole system. We might understand a partially unified system as one that has achieved stochastic attraction of half of its component entities along one axis.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht69.gif" width="257" height="220"></p> <p>Complete unification would be achieved if all the particulate components achieved the same direction of spin in harmonic synchronization. It is my hypothesis that when this kind of stochastic attraction occurs, it becomes the basis for spin chaining along the parallel axis of first order spin, such that the object comes to resemble a chain.</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR7.ht70.gif" width="402" height="200"></p> <p>A hypothetical chain, as exhibited below, could have all or most of its units unified by spin, or it could alternatively have some of its elements in parity with one another. It is not difficult to picture such a chain as a quantum or wave-form, or alternatively as a spiral, string or spring, and in this we can state that these forms are essentially equivalent.</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR7.ht71.gif" width="507" height="132"></p> <p>We might say that unification and harmonic synchronization of spin allows the constituent elements of an entity to achieve a particularistic presence in relationship to the whole entity that it could not have separately in its unbound state. In binding the constituent entity to the whole, the whole entity takes on the non-particularistic properties derived from its spin bound components. At the same time, the entity as a whole acquires its own unique set of properties as a result of its unification. There appears to be a basic complementariness or trade-off in this process. We can see that perhaps nature itself observes a principle of superposition in unification, such that the property or set of properties cannot become unified without sacrifice of other possible properties inherent to the particularistic expression of the components of the system. Thus, it is apparent, that our observations of reality may not be so discordant with the actual expressions achieved by that reality.</p> <p>We might look at this kind of construct as a unified field or as a part of a wave construct or spiral. If both sides achieved spin synchronization, then they would come together and spin in the same direction, and their spinning would define a sinusoidal wave- type pattern.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>The theory of spin synchronization arises from the unitary spin theory that in turn arises from presumed isotopic spin characteristics of nucleonic particles, and is important in understanding unitary and universal symmetry. This theory is derived directly from a model of mechanical spin, and is intrinsic to the structural form and description of the nucleon as a fundamental particle state. This theory partially accounts for charge, which is a possible characteristic of such spin properties, and is important in understanding the fundamental structure of reality. This theory has not yet been completely integrated with a coherent unified field theory, though undoubtedly it forms a central part of this theory.</p> <hr> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Chapter VIII</p> </font><font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Cosmological Evolution</p> </font><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Cold Fusion & The Emerging-State Universe</p> </font> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p><b><font size="6">P</font></b>roposed is a model of cosmological evolution that I refer to as the cold fusion process. The basis of this model is universal principle that I will state as the law of evolutionary order, and I take to be fundamental to universal dynamics and thermodynamics. It states:</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. Complex derivative states can only have come from simpler and more basic states as the result of concentrative energy dynamics.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. Simpler and more basic states can only be derived entropically from more complex states as a derivative result following creation, and only as the process of chaotic explosion, or violent distributive energy dynamics.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. It therefore follows that if there is some explosive effect rendering simpler states from more complex entities, there must have been a previous creative process of constructive derivation of simple states to more complex ones.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">4. It also follows that if there is some long-term process of creative concentration of complex states, the potential for chaotic destruction of these states will increase in time, eventually resulting in explosion.</p> <p>Hierarchical stratification of order and chaos can be seen as a direct outcome of these principles. It follows from a natural-state universe that is inherently non-linear, random, stochastic, and chaotic in character. If the index of order in the universe increases, so also would the index of disorder increase.</p> <p>This principle states that we cannot create hydrogen from helium unless we first created helium from hydrogen. We cannot create iron or uranium from other elements unless we first created the other elements from which they were derived.</p> <p>I will conjecture that we cannot create hydrogen, which seems to have been the basic building block of physical matter, unless we first created either a neutron and anti-neutron pair, one of which dissociated into its charged proton-electron pair. Alternatively, we created a proton-anti-proton pair, which entailed the likewise creation of an electron-positron pair. We can observe the creation of an electron-positron pair, and I believe cosmic radiation might lead to a pathway of creating a proton-anti-proton pair. This would entail postulating a fundamental charge symmetry of nature, such that if we create a negative charge state, then we must create its complementary positively charged state at the same time.</p> <p>This suggests that somehow neutrons were originally created as pairs by some as yet unknown process, which process leads to the decay of one pair into a proton-electron pair that is charge polarized. In this sense, charge might be seen as a way of maintaining stratification between symmetrical states. Charge binding results in non-reciprocal self-cancellation of complementary states. Charge must always be balanced, and results in symmetrical mass balance.</p> <p>How we explain the creation of neutrons in space is difficult, but I will conjecture it is related to the ubiquitous interstitial presence of blackbody radiation sources in the universe. It is tied to the gravitational self-unification of externalized spime in the universe as the direct result of charge capture of gravitational & thermodynamic radiation in conditions of extreme gravitational rarefication. A nucleonic entity of a neutron is created through the creation of an uneven gravitational field that results in a singular center of gravity about which spime is accreted.</p> <p>I speculate furthermore that there are conditions naturally occurring in intergalactic space in which normal thermodynamic radiation, which is always seen to be radiant, actually becomes attractant or concentrative. Thermodynamic radiation can be seen to follow pathways of gravitational radiation. If gravitational radiation occurs in focal concentric points, it follows that thermodynamic radiation will follow these pathways into concentrative, rather than naturally dispersion patterns. In these regions, which I speculate are related to blackbody regions, an anti-entropic effect may occur that leads to higher energy states. These are furthermore field patterns that result in complex states of interference between light coming from divergent sources. These patterns can be seen as constructive and convergent, resulting in the formation of higher energy states.</p> <p>It is from these conditions that neutrons are created, which in turn decay into proton-electron pairs. These entities accumulate in clouds in interstellar space. These clouds are very diffuse and relatively homogeneous and isotropic in their earliest stages. The original universe was just such a cloud that formed in the dark veil of the night, and that grew in size and increasing complexity as time wore on. Gravitation in such a condition would also have been relatively homogeneous and in relative equilibrium. The universe arose gradually out of an energy sink, one small bit at a time.</p> <p>With the gradual accumulation of interstellar matter, there was a gradual increase in the background radiation associated with this diffuse cloud. This cloud probably became increasingly striated and stratified against the background of the space-time continuum, and this patterning result in a mosaic compartmentalization of the space-time continuum into gravitational currents and eddies. At some point, gravitation came to define itself about some common center of balance, resulting in the increasing accretion of matter to a center. We can speak in dense concentrations of interstellar matter the formation of nebulae leading to proto-stars that would be large concentrations of organized hydrogen gas about a common center of gravity. From this stage, we can speak of the increasing dynamic fluctuation of an increasing number of stars. The evolution of the universe is homologous to the evolutionary history of a star. We know that the majority of stars emerge from a growing equilibrium established by an energy balance between thermonuclear production of energy and thermodynamic radiation, on the one hand, and pressure-gravitational balance, on the other hand. This balance halts a gradual contraction of the proto-star at the point that thermonuclear fusion processes are created generating internal pressures that offset gravitational accretion. I speculate that hydrogen nuclei are further created in this process in an on-going matter, only to be consumed in the process of the solar furnace. The result is the forging of new nuclei of increasing atomic weight in an increasing series of steps. I believe that this forging process occurs on a statistical basis, and this process increases the heat of the star gradually. Nuclei are continuously consumed in secondary fission processes during most of the life of the star.</p> <p>Eventually, near the end of the main sequence phase, which is a function of the size and gravitational pressure of the star, there is a gradual increase of the ratio of helium to hydrogen nuclei. At this stage, the star cools off in a more inert state, and then goes through a second stage of contraction and reactivation in which higher atomic level nuclei are forged.</p> <p>Eventually, the ratio of helium to hydrogen is so great that the original fusion processes are cooled down to a limit at which there is a red-expansion. Then there is a return with re-contraction of the star to denser and denser states during which hydrogen is removed and higher number elements are forged in increasing amounts. Temperatures at the core of these stars increases to the point that the core eventually becomes degenerate, after which final collapse and or explosion of the star is an expected outcome.</p> <p>It is evident that the ratio of elements of composition of a star gradually changes over the life of a star, going from being predominantly hydrogen for most of its life, to increasing concentrations of higher number elements at the end of its life. There is even the accretion of what I would call "super-mass" at the very terminus of its state-trajectory. In the process, explosions occur throughout the life of a star that result in continuous creation and destruction of elements, always broadcasting more than it is inducting from the surrounding space-time manifold. Explosions throw out on a random basis all kinds of stellar matter at all phases of its development, in ratios that probably, in the long run, reflect the ratios of composition of the star during its major phases.</p> <p>From this kind of model, it must be conjectured whether or not the earth and other planets were not either spent cores of black dwarves that were captured in the gravitational orbit of new solar entities. Else if they were the composite excreta of old and destroyed systems that re-aggregated around new centers of gravity.</p> <p>Obviously, it is difficult to imagine the creation of an iron core earth of considerable size from the hydrogen cloud about the sun, unless iron nuclei were present in the interstellar cloud in sufficient density to form centrifugal condensation rings around the earliest proto-stars. Gravitational rings about bodies are commonly observed phenomena, and it is not difficult to imagine how these rings can become both stratified and accumulated into gravitational bodies.</p> <p>I speculate that there is a normal sequence of development of stars that follows a normal trajectory, that is largely size dependent. In the long run this sequence leads to eventual decay of systems that result in return of the explosive return of the basic components of the system back to its most basic and primitive states.</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR8.ht72.gif" width="659" height="574"></p> <p>In this model, it is quite evident that energy is consistently returned back to the manifold of space-time, and there are continuous spime-gravitational interactions of varying intensities during the life of a star. Chance mechanisms such as the influence of neighboring systems, collisions or accretion of extra-stellar matter can influence the outcomes of the state-path trajectory. In this system, all matter known to naturally occur, even exotic forms of super-matter, are created, and subsequently destroyed at the end of the process to be returned to the substrate from which matter arose in the first place. Very dense and leftover cores will be the byproduct of these creation processes, and these leftover pieces will reenter other systems in dynamic pathways depending upon the gravitational fields they become caught within. Explosions can also be expected to occur that result in the violent annihilation or disintegration of matter to more basic states in a fairly random manner.</p> <p>We can define this evolutionary phase on a more even time-line:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR8.ht73.gif" width="624" height="209"></p> <p> </p> <p>It is in a very similar way that we can observe the universe to have gradually arisen in more differentiated and stratified states, accumulating a larger and larger stockpile of stable degenerate matter at the end. With the increasing stratification and differentiation of the universe, pathways between states would become increasingly complex. Gravitation, at first relatively uniform and undefined, would grow in increasing states of local disequilibrium. We can imagine a kind of grid or table of natural stratification of basic components of the universe, say hydrogen to spime, hydrogen to helium and hydrogen to super-mass ratios. In time, the overall distribution of patterning of this type of matrix will alter toward the heavy end, though there will be increasing production at the light end at the same time. As the ratios gradually change, the gravitational dynamic influencing the net balance of pattern and distribution will also change.</p> <p align="left">Possible outcomes of stellar development are either the depleted solid cores of composed of heavy elements, not unlike the core of the earth, or the core of even denser condensations of nucleonic matter, of neutron super-mass, or of super-nucleated matter of black holes that are essentially a single atomic nucleus. These heavy gravitating condensations serve one purpose at least, and that is the annihilation of matter to its most primitive states. These entities might coalesce into larger or more stable gravity-systems, or alternatively eventually themselves distintegrate or explode violently in some final mass annihilation event.</p> <p align="center">Step 1:</p> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="7" WIDTH="319"> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">1/1</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Hydrogen</td> <td WIDTH="41%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Super-Mass</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Spime</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">10/1</td> <td WIDTH="41%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">100/2</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Energy</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">5/1</td> <td WIDTH="41%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">10/3</td> </tr> </table> <p align="center">Step 2:</p> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="7" WIDTH="319"> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">2/3</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Hydrogen</td> <td WIDTH="41%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Super-Mass</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Spime</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">20/3</td> <td WIDTH="41%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">200/6</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Energy</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">10/3</td> <td WIDTH="41%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">20/9</td> </tr> </table> <p align="center">Step N:</p> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="7" WIDTH="319"> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">4x/9y</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Hydrogen</td> <td WIDTH="41%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Super-Mass</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Spime</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">80x/27y</td> <td WIDTH="41%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">800x/54y</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">Energy</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">40x/27y</td> <td WIDTH="41%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p align="center">80x/81y</td> </tr> </table> <p>In such a manner, we can imagine more complex distributional tables to account for all the naturally occurring elements and energies in the universe and their relative inter-corelational ratios. We might discover that over time, there was a gradual change in the overall distribution of this pattern.</p> <p>The universe, as a grand energy system, entails that there must be multiple points of exchange and feedback, not only upon different levels of scale and analysis, but between different levels as well. We can possibly identify some larger feedback cycles that appear to be operating in maintaining the structural stability of the entire system over the long term. That these cycles are not perfect or complete lends further credence to the possibility that indeed the entire universe is itself fluctuating in a dynamic way, suggesting as well a multi-state system.</p> <p>One such cycle that I believe may be very fundamental to the entire structure of the system is the following:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR8.ht74.gif" width="510" height="155"></p> <p>If all energies in the long run decay and lose both their momentum of energy and also their exactitude, then we can speculate that in the long run they gradually return to some common reservoir. This reservoir to which all energies eventually return I will call the negative spime reservoir.</p> <p>The most basic and simplest cycle to apprehend is the one presented in the diagram above. The continuous induction of spime into an internalized spime matrix, which process can be understood as a requirement of Heisenbergian uncertainty which cannot allow a single entity to remain permanently localized without change, results in continuous gravitational radiation from the source of the internalized matrix. The consequence is that a great deal of energy is released and realized from this system in the form of gravitation. Gravitation is known to affect both the space-time manifold and distant objects. If gravitational radiation follows the principle of continuous degradation of all energies, eventually it should seek some alternate state, which, predictably, will be to become captured or reincorporated into the external spime matrix. It is predictable that this re-absorption of gravitational energy into the fold of space-time will occur in one of two kinds of ways. In the vast intergalactic regions that can be considered to be maximally stretched, and in the center of gravitational sources themselves.</p> <p>We can go a little further in this kind of analysis. We can say that the fabric of space-time is being stretched to its min-max limits in the depths of space. If the universe has no limit, it can have no center of gravitational balance for the entire system. If it has centers, then these are regionally defined. If there are regional centers, then there are interregional nodal and saddle zones where gravitational forces from contraposed origins will work to effectively cancel one another out. One consequence might be the stretching, pulling and even rending of the space-time fabric. It is in these areas that it can be expected that energy will exhibit the greatest degree of dynamic distortion and degradation, and experience the greatest amount of diffusive crossing into a hypothetical spime state.</p> <p>The other region where this kind of feedback process can be expected to occur would be at the center of gravity systems themselves, especially in very large systems. Processes that create gravitational energy may also result in some residual amount of degradation of this same energy back to the manifold of spime itself. In fact, in the core of such mechanisms, we can expect the regular occurrence of gravitational eddies and turbulence that continuously reproduces spime from gravitation.</p> <p>All large objects in the universe become like gravitational lenses that focus spime upon their own centers. Like taking a magnifying glass and focusing sunlight upon a focal point, a great deal of heat is created. The focal point of a three dimensional spherical object is its own core. Gravitational radiation emitting from the object is the direct consequence of its continuous spime induction. It can be seen that a large object might actually induce more spime into itself than it is capable of utilizing in the replacement of its own internalized spime. The excess is either cast off as gravitational radiation, or returned as spime or some other form of energy or even the basic elements of matter itself.</p> <p>We can see that any large object, if large enough to overcome the resistive forces of molecular and atomic structural patterning, will seek a spherical shape and will lead to greater unification of mass at the center. With larger systems, internalized pressures are also created.</p> <p>I will hypothesize that pressure is equivalent to the instantaneous degree of spime-replacement/gravitational displacement occurring upon a system. Systems of great pressure can be expected to produce dynamic energy exchange effects in their cores. A body falls to the earth, not because it was "pulled" by some mysterious force of gravity, but because spime surrounding it exerted a noticeable and demonstrable, measurable pressure upon it, a pressure that was instantaneously uniform and continuous.</p> <p>If we take the model below, we can extend it to a more complex model to include other possible feedback pathways:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR8.ht75.gif" width="625" height="375"></p> <p> </p> <p>From this model, we can see that in fact, on most phenomenal levels, the universe exhibits a remarkable degree of larger, asymptotic stability in spite of its basically dynamic and uncertain structure. Not depicted here would be a fourth order system that is large enough to produce unusual effects that are the result of super gravitational-pressure forces.</p> <p>This model allows us to depict various kinds of gravitating objects based upon their presumed pressures derived from their size and density. We can state the following kind of scale:</p> <p>0 degree Systems: Nucleonic structures--no obvious or apparent gravitational effects</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1st degree Systems: Small bodies with minimal gravitational radiation. No thermodynamic-pressure effects.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2nd degree Systems: Medium sized bodies with enough gravitational pressure to induce gravitational fusion and thermodynamic radiation.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3rd degree Systems: Large sized bodies, usually solar, with enough gravitational pressure and mass to induce both gravitational fusion and thermodynamic fusion into matter. Such solar bodies can be considered to be the furnaces of new matter in the universe.</p> <p style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">4th degree Systems: Super-sized bodies that are so large that they result in gravitational collapse or implosion resulting in either super-mass or the return of gravitational energy into spime or sub-spime entities.</p> <p>For each of these systems, we may hypothesize some set of derivative secondary systems that would include any number of alternative gravitational bodies unified in a common harmonic system of gravitation, often about a virtual center of gravitational balance. The effects of such complex unification can be interesting and lead to other kinds of pathways of re-conversion of spime and energy.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>It is clear that in understanding these processes, we can comprehend what can be considered to be basic creative forces of nature that underlie the structural patterning and origination of the physical universe. We can see that many common objects in the night sky, invisible to our naked eye, are continuously producing several forms of radiation. We can see that more obvious stellar systems serve as solar furnaces for the forging of the basic elements that abound in the universe. We can see that the energy that is cast off, is eventually returned to the fold of space-time itself, to where it can achieve a state of rest, and we can see that the process is renewed with each passing second of the cosmic clock.</p> <p>We can see that the same gravity systems also serve in larger structures to unify matter and to consolidate it, and to return it through fission and pressurization to the elementary forms from which it was ultimately derived. The many left over chunks and asteroids and comets flying about space, the many clouds of gaseous particles, are but the remains of old and exhausted systems. Many of these perhaps exploded in a gravitational explosion under their own weight, and some of which may even have collided cataclysmically with one another. Many became trapped eventually in the long arms of a black hole, to be eventually reduced through sheer pressure to its most elementary of states, at which point gravitation can no longer hold it in place and it must escape to some other set of dimensions.</p> <p>There is no reason to assume that this process does not extend through an almost indefinite depth of time and over an almost limitless breadth of space. This is really the predominant kinds of processes we are observing when we view the distant galaxies in space through our sophisticated telescopes. To superimpose some finite boundary of time and place upon such a vast kaleidoscope of physical processes in the universe is to play the part of a would-be god in the redefinition of what is inherently self-defining.</p> <p>In the vast scheme of things, in spite of the inherent dynamics of the universe, we can speak about a net conservation and balance of forces and energies that construct and destruct the universe on a continuous and unending basis. We may find this balance no where locally preserved, not even in any grander regional framework, but we can expect it in the larger structure possible. However dynamic the universe may be in the infinite senses of its occurrence, it is always in some equivalent way also structurally congruent and uniform.</p> <p>From the observable creative and destructive process of the universe, we can infer possibly other more basic processes of construction and destruction regularly occurring in the background of the spime matrix itself. When we speak of the rending of the fabric of space-time, we speak also implicitly of the possibility of alternative space-time constructs and a constituent structure of space-time itself that remains something of a mystery. We introduce the concept of negative energies and negative entities, and we see that such negative entities cannot have a discrete particularistic form, but exist only as stochastic possibilities in some field of potential relations. It is possible that negative energies may exist in multiple dimensionalities.</p> <p>It is from these always hypothetical and inferable and only indirectly demonstrable processes that we can perhaps in time come to understand the origins of the universe itself. It becomes in some deeper and more fundamental sense as a super complex system of differential states and energies that arose from out of apparent nothingness and randomness. The universe arose stochastically as a matter of chance, out of the structure of the long run that was in some sense fundamentally undetermined. It arose, because, in an infinite reality, what is even only remotely possible, eventually happens.</p> <p>In this profound, and profoundly sublime, view of the universe, there is no room for metaphysical speculation or supernatural determinisms. It is a very grand view of the universe that would render any conception of a 16 billion-year-old big bang but a momentary phenomenon in only one small spot of the universe.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>A model of evolution of the dynamic state universe is a "cold" differentiation process. We can posit that originally the universe existed in some "Zeroth State" that was maximally undifferentiated. Based upon my spime systematic model, the emergence of a negative-state universe was incipient to the divergence of symmetrical positive state universes. It suggests the possibility that in fact phenomena like black holes lead into new phases of universal development. The model of this cosmological history is depicted below:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR8.ht76.gif" width="673" height="523"></p> <p>Such a complex model of an emergent evolutionary universe implies its built in dynamics and also its total integration as a unified, though complexly stratified, field. We can see it to be continuous in numerous dimensions. We can see that the state differentiation proceeds dimensionally, intensively and extensively at the same time, but that, no matter how many differentiated states, with each comprising its own sub-universe, they are all integrated into a single universal continuum. In such a universe, Time as we understand this would only have emerged at some subsequent stage of the development of the universe, such that the previous state-stages existed primarily outside of a temporal dimension. This may be difficult to imagine, and seems contradictory unless we can understand that all change events in the previous state-stages would be reciprocal processes.</p> <p>Where our observational sphere might fit into such a cosmological structure is difficult to tell. Surely, when we look 16 billion light years in depth of the observable universe, we are seeing a state that existed, in a positive sense, 16 billion years ago. We cannot know how large a compass we are viewing of the universe at this depth, though we must conclude from our understanding of the nonlinear characteristics of light that it must be a very vast region. Still, we cannot now guess as to what percentage of the total our field of view may encompass.</p> <p>If we are to look for the history of the universe, perhaps we are to look at the intensive cosmology of the physical structure of reality in greater infinitesimal depth. This is true especially if we are to understand this as an emergent phenomenon that did not always exist in the state that we find today.</p> <p>The paradox of our speculations is that we cannot know now the exact contemporaneous state of the total universe. We are hard-pressed even to infer its exact structure in any extensive sense. Granted, we can infer that the Milky Way Galaxy is currently in an approximate disposition based upon what we can observe in space. Hence we conclude that there is some remarkable and relatively permanent coherence or stability about such systems. We conclude the same for even more distant galaxies that we are capable of observing. It is likely that the evolutionary processes of even the inferable universe are so deep in time, and so encompassing in space, that our observational sphere will never be able to reach deep enough to discover its origins, at least not any time too soon.</p> <p>Any emergent universe is one that is congruent with our observation of natural self-organization of physical processes on all levels. Natural phenomena tend in the long run toward increasing complexity, often derived from very simple relations. If we posit a cosmic egg that was instantaneously creative of all known mass and energy, we must still beg the question of how such an egg itself could have been created. What physical processes could account for its instantaneous self-creation.</p> <p>An emergent, dynamic state universe may in fact extend backward in time infinitely, even beyond time, and it may also extend in terms of space infinitely. We can infer from our own observational sphere and presuppositions of universal simultaneity and physical congruence of reality that the universe may have had earlier, more primitive states, such that the "original state" in essence existed before time and thus was inherently eternal and static at the same time. Paradoxically, it also may have been infinitely dimensional.</p> <p>A paradox that this leaves unanswered is that in the original state universe, physical phenomena like energy and mass must have arisen as a from some previously undifferentiated state. If it is true that many conversion processes occur today in the core of mass-objects, these same processes couldn't have been hypothesized to have occurred in the original state. This suggests that there are other, more fundamental pathways to the creation of the physical universe than those hypothesized to occur locally within the framework of our own current system. The pathways we must conjecture to occur are those that happen along the perimeters and equator of our sphere of reality, as possibly at the interstices and outer limits of our system.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>If we are to understand the history and cosmography of the universe, we must get at the notion of basic boundaries occurring in reality that serve to demarcate and segregate large portions of the total universe into sub-systems. These kinds of boundaries are not absolute, but relativistic, and they would permit crossing in some form. They would be boundaries defined by some gradient of transition that would require some threshold for passing. I would hypothesize that these kinds of boundaries that separate universes are either gravitational or sub-gravitation, depending upon how we conceptualize gravitation as a system. At least one such boundary can be found in our observable universe, and that is the boundary defined by the gravitational implosion of a black-hole. I believe other such boundaries exist to demarcate alternative state universes and sub-universes though they have not yet been identified as such. The description of such boundaries would lead us to an understanding of the larger cosmological structure of the universe than what is observationally available to us at this time.</p> <p>The boundary system of the naturally occurring universe appears to me to be manifold. We can speak of extensive boundaries that appear to be the function of distance primarily. We can also speak of "intensive" boundaries that appear to be the function of relativistic energies that occur, constraining the degrees of freedom that natural systems have, and setting the stage for dynamic chaos.</p> <p>I believe extensive boundaries can be understood in this manner. With increasing distance between mass distributions in the universe, there is an increasing gradient of negative gravitational energy that must be crossed, and this gradient is essentially like a hill of space-time that stands between any two distantly separated mass distributions.</p> <p>If we took a cross section or profile view of the gravitational topography of space-time, in which strong gravitational fields are like depressions, then we would get a picture as follows:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR8.ht77.gif" width="645" height="193"></p> <p> </p> <p>In this kind of spime-gravitational topography, we can infer the hierarchical structure as a function of distance and the relative energy system that occurs, such that there is a complex interplay in 3-space and in four dimensions. To find a boundary at higher levels, it is apparent that we must go to greater and greater distances. We might imagine a model of extreme boundaries, perhaps between a black hole on one end, the deepest and emptiest space, and another black hole at the other end:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR8.ht78.gif" width="578" height="330"></p> <p> </p> <p>The conventional space-time model does not account for negative non-isotropic effects of space-time. Essentially, the intervening spaces of very deep space would have either a very slight curvature or else remain essentially flat. A revised model of the dynamic state universe would construe the curvature as always locally relative to the gravitational field it occurs within, in the larger context of the universal gravitational field. The universal gravitational field has several characteristics:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">1. It is negative and positive.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">2. It is instantaneously co-occurring.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">3. It is topographically stratified.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER" style="line-height: 100%; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">4. It is fluid dynamic in different directions.</p> <p>These characteristics are not typical of the conventional view of the space-time construct, and would suggest a revision of relativistic field equations with variables that might account for these possibilities. In other words, it is apparent that normal space-time must permit other types of motions, or solutions, than given by the field equations. This arises from the postulate that negative gravitational energy does not obey the normal laws of physics in the way that energy and matter do. Another way of saying this is that the Einsteinian field equations are appropriate for our normal observational sphere of the positive-state universe, but are insufficient for the larger inferential sphere of the total instantaneous universe.</p> <p>In this picture, we may still hypothesize a normal equilibrium line, and in the large, normal random non-stochastic homogeneity and isotropism of structure of the universe, but with increasing depth and distance, the fluctuations about this line grow, rather than normalize. The universe grows increasingly complex, chaotic and dynamic, rather than increasingly steady state and uniform of structure, such that we may speculate that even the equilibrium line fluctuates in a relative way over the long run.</p> <p>Intensive, energetic boundaries, or what can be called relativistic boundaries, arise from the consideration of the extensive gravitational boundaries defined above. These boundaries are what can be called intrinsic structural boundaries that define the structural stasis and integrity of the entire universe regardless of the distances. We may imagine that a disruption of the extensive boundary beyond the extreme in any direction results in the violation of intensive boundaries. Disintegration and radical destruction of physical systems seem to be the consequences of passing these thresholds, but the notion of the possibility of such thresholds allows an nth-dimensional universe that transcends the normal physical structure as we are capable of observing this.</p> <p>We must speculate that at such threshold boundaries, there are typical and basic conversion pathways occurring between spime and negative energy and positive energy and mass-systems. These pathways we do not yet clearly understand. Obviously, if we can conjecture that hydrogen nuclei are being produced in the core of the sun on a continuous and regular basis, then this could not have been how all the hydrogen nuclei of the sun were produced in the first place.</p> <p>Even if there was a previous solar system or set of extinct systems from which this one ultimately derived, we must still conjecture upon an original and more basic mechanism of creation that occurs in the interstitial regions of the universe. We are led back to the conjecture of a Hoyle Steady State universe, with the production of hydrogen nuclei on a regular basis in the midst of space. I believe such a production process does occur in the depths of intergalactic space, though we do not clearly understand this pathway as yet. It would have to be an energy-mediated pathway, such that we must speculate upon the pathway of spontaneous creation of energy from apparent negative energy in the first place. In other words, a model of an emerging state universe, to be successful, demands a clear accounting in terms of such alternative creation pathways, compared to those can be conjectured to exist today.</p> <p>If spime can be said in its normal state to exist in reciprocal conditions, and to compose a kind of uniform or universally integrated field, then any possible perturbation in this field must have some long-term butterfly effect.</p> <p>We might possibly imagine this arising through self-consistent patterns inducing resonance amplification such that the net effect of the amplified signal grows non-linearly compared to its reciprocal outputs. One way of conceptualizing this is, I believe, to see a fairly uniform and ideally random distribution:</p> <p><img border="0" src="CR8.ht79.gif" width="519" height="251"></p> <p> </p> <p>In this model, we can imagine the self-organizational partition of space into two balanced halves, and the establishment of some kind of complex field pattern between them.</p> <p>The kind of phenomena appears to consistently occur in natural systems and represents a kind vortex pattern as suggested below that results from cyclonic interactions of forces in relation to one another:</p> <p> </p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR8.ht80.gif" width="289" height="223"></p> <p> </p> <p>We can imagine such a pattern suggesting a kind of structure within a structure such that larger currents are realized from the action of smaller currents. We can imagine effects like gravitational hammers or tidal wave effects that result in uneven and possibly non-reciprocal pattern emergent. We can imagine two such sworls colliding into one another:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR8.ht81.gif" width="289" height="256"></p> <p> </p> <p>The result would be similar to a tornado or hurricane, such that we can conjecture the rise of an unusual amount of turbulence. At some stage, such turbulence must have given rise to higher level and more stable composite systems. We must speculate about whether the physical universe can be self-replicating on some fundamental basis, almost as if it were a biological life form. Self-replicating structures do not have to be genetic in their original state.</p> <p>Indeed, if genetic structures emerged as self-replicating systems from a natural physical state that was originally non-biological, we can conjecture that other similar kinds of systems may have emerged this way. I will conjecture that spime as a particularistic entity, if we can call it this, might be in fact a self-replicating kind of entity, and that perhaps smaller sub-spime components like wxyz infinitesimals or nth-particulates may also somehow have self-replicating patterns.</p> <p>The easiest way for me to imagine such a structure is as the formation of a double helix structure from a single helix that accretes to its length loose or smaller energy-entities until these structures form its own coherent helix structure.</p> <p>At such a point such a helix would separate to form two independent helices that in turn replicate:</p> <p> </p> <p><img border="0" src="CR8.ht82.gif" width="485" height="350"></p> <p>It can be expected that such a replication pattern can go on ad infinitum at a rate of simple exponential increase, under the correct conditions. It is possible that the expansion of spime matrix in space is the product of just such a form of expansion. This is a simple expansion model. We might explain the formation of composite entity-energies in a similar way, or by some other process of accretion or joining of basic entities that leads to larger, more stable structures. We must indeed invoke some kind of mechanism of self-replication or continuous production from smaller entities to explain the great aggregation of certain kinds of phenomena in the physical universe.</p> <p>In other words, once some basic non-random pattern emerged from the chaotic background, it would have begun replicating itself on a continuous basis. We can assume at first at least that these patterns may have in fact been quite linear in pattern. The basic universe in the narrow range at least appears to follow quite uniform and on some level almost perfectly uniform patterns. We must assume that the wonderful directional properties of light, for instance, are ultimately defined by the zeroth entity, such that there is some kind of near perfect stability and deterministic linearity of such systems. We can assume that the original universe was a near perfect-state universe, and only gradually grew in increasing nonlinear patterns out of alignment, at which point dynamic resonance effects could occur and properties like entropy could become characteristic of all subsequent change processes. We must posit a relationship between order and disorder such that if in the original state, order equals disorder such that:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">U<sub>d</sub> /U<sub>o</sub> = 1<sub>od</p> </sub> <p ALIGN="CENTER">U<sub>o</sub> = ƒ(U<sub>d</sub>)</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>In time, increasing disorder led to decreasing order such that:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">U<sub>o</sub> = 2<sub>o</p> </sub> <p ALIGN="CENTER">U<sub>d</sub> = 2<sub>d</p> </sub> <p>We can further speculate that in time, these basic values grew as a function of changing relationships occurring between them in the same emergent field. Thus, increasing disorder led to increasing patterns of order, and vice versa. We might speculate that such a pattern describes a pattern of cyclical growth or resonance amplification in the long run:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR8.ht83.gif" width="328" height="194"></p> <p>We might from this kind of represent speculate that order and disorder themselves are in a sense complex phenomena with their own resonance patterns, such that negative order increases as positive order decreases:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">(U<sub>d</sub>+/U<sub>d</sub>-)/(U<sub> o</sub>-/U<sub>o</sub>+) = 1<sub>od</p> </sub> <p>This model also describes a universe that is expanding in multiple ways, and we can posit multiple infinitudes for this expansion, such as extensiveness, intensively, dimensionality and state-complexity.</p> <p>We can picture this expansion process in the following way:</p> <p align="center"><img border="0" src="CR8.ht84.gif" width="577" height="375"></p> <p> </p> <p>We can find in this very basic growth pattern, the basis perhaps for the emergence of a fundamentally differentiated reality sphere, in which spime remains at the axis and source of all transition phenomena between alternative states of reality. We can speak of the emergence at different junctures of the stage-states or stadial development of the universe in terms of emerging transition boundaries that serve to compartmentalize and segregate the universe into ever increasing complexity.</p> <p>Throughout this entire development, we must understand as well the emergence of a complex sense of equilibrium about some central line, what I would call the common spime-line, by which the universe has maintained its universal coherence as a continuous field in spite of its complexity and chaos. It leaves us with a fundamental paradox about our universe, one that has black holes and appears to be expanding fundamentally, in that it seeks a state of equilibrium, in a sense from which it originated, but which will only lead to greater order and disorder in growing disequilibrium.</p> <hr> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Chapter IX</p> </font><font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Conclusions</p> </font><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The Dynamic State Universe & the Implied Unified Field</p> </font> <p> </p> <p><b><font size="6">T</font></b>his alternative cosmological model of the dynamic state universe is in direct contradistinction to the received relativistic model of the big bang universe. I have done so primarily because the presupposition of a zero-state model, derived from the singularity principle, imposes a blind determinism upon the universe that I hold to be scientifically untenable and nonscientific. This determinism arises from the presupposition of a bounded original state of the universe in which high energies were preexistent, or a priori, to their own possibility of formation, and in which gravitational pressure, as an initial presupposition, remains unexplained. It is scientifically contradictory to the known principles of entropy and stratification of ordered complexity, to posit the preexistence of a higher energy state without explaining the previous origin of such a state except from the concept of the perfectly smooth and uniform "singularity."</p> <p>Furthermore, it can be correctly demonstrated that li