If thermodynamic energy processes dominate the universe in a closed system, such that all energy transactions always tend toward disorder and a universal energy sink, then we cannot logically explain the formation of large concentrated structures based upon the permanent and long-term capture of massive amounts of energy. The fact of the observation of such large formations, from myriad stars to larger galaxies and super-galaxies, suggests other invisible processes may be occurring in our universe. From a systems standpoint, such formations can only be explained if we assume two things: 1. The universe is an open, and therefore an infinite system, such that all energy transactions occurring in a working system are part of a larger framework of energy transactions; 2. There is an alternate form of energy that occurs, namely gravitational energy, that does not strictly obey the laws of thermodynamics and that is in many respects the reverse and complementary to the positive energy transactions with associate with purely thermodynamic systems. We may say therefore that all systems in the universe are thermodynamic, but they are also gravitationally dynamic, and these two sets of processes tend toward equivalence and complementariness of structural pattern in the developmental formation of the universe.

The model of the dynamic state universe stipulates the following:

1. The universe contains everything in reality, and is not contained by anything, such that whatever large structure we may imagine or observe in the universe, there is always some more fundamental and larger structure that contains that imagined or observed structure.

a. As a corollary of this basic statement, we may say that the laws of thermodynamics governing positive energy transactions apply universally, and this universal applicability of thermodynamics governing positive energy systems provides evidence for the infinite openness of the universe as a fundamental containing structure.

b. A second corollary of this proposition is that the laws of gravitational dynamics governing negative energy transactions also apply universally, and are entirely complementary to the positive energy transactions. This entails that no matter how open and infinite the structure of the universe may be, from the standpoint of negative energy transactions it remains fundamentally whole and unitary as a composite integrated energy system, or what can be called a unified and universal background field.

2. Therefore, the Universe is probably infinite, and therefore also it is probably eternal in its total fundamental framework--it always existed, will always exist, and had no beginning nor any end.

3. There is basic sense of equivalence, or isomorphism of essential structure, underlying all energy transactions in the universe.

a. Positive energy transactions in the large and the long run exactly balance negative energy transactions.

4. In the largest sense, the universe is composed of pure and basic energy, and all things and events that occur in the universe are derivative patterns of this basic form of energy.

5. What has evolved and changed in the universe is the profile and overall distribution of forms of patterned energy and the way in which positive and negative energy transactions occur within the unified field.

It appears that there has occurred a continual stockpiling of matter, or mass-based energy, and a tendency towards the concentration and formation of increasingly dense mass-structures, to the point that the relatively permanent and stable mass systems develop and accumulate in average spatial-temporal densities.

At the same time, it appears that larger and larger regions of the universe are becoming gravitationally unified about a common or shared center of greatest mass, and this process of increasing gravitational unification is serving to create order from disorder, and structured pattern from chaotic and stochastic pattern in the basic framework of the universe.

Thus, it can be said that the universe at one time was probably mostly empty and undifferentiated, consisting mainly of the basic form of energy in space-time. It is thought that inherent turbulence in this structure resulted in increasing differentiation and formation of emergent patterns and formations of energy, with new suites of properties and behaviors associated with these emergent patterns. Both positive and negative forms of energy were the consequence of the emergence of increasingly differentiated structures.

Thus we see the universe as evolving gradually from a less to greater differentiated states, and from essentially stochastic and non-isotrope states, obeying a perfect cosmological principle, toward increasingly ordered and isotrope conditions. Thus we may refer to the universe as growing increasingly dynamic with each passing phase.

We may state the following net outcomes of the dynamic state universe. Though larger and larger regions of space will become gravitationally unified, space overall will become compartmentalized into regions that remain in total un-unified and non-isotrope in distribution and direction.

This theory rests upon certain presuppositions:

Upon a fundamental level, there is an essential isomorphism of structure of energy in the universe, and this constitutes the universal background field.

There is regular transference and conversion of energy between positive and negative forms through the interaction of matter and energy in gravitational fields.

There is a net balance of all energy transactions.

 Electron-positron pairs are regularly created in the universe as a by-product of inherent turbulence of the universal background field.

Fundamental constituent elements of matter, in the form of nucleons, are regularly created from energy transactions, by means of interactions and capture of electron-positron pairs. All other subatomic particles are constituted in this way and represent derivative structures of mass.

Protons are the most stable, mass-bearing subatomic particle, and it is this great stability that the observable structures of the universe are based upon.

Basic matter in the form of hydrogen clouds stockpile in increasing amounts and local relative densities, to the point that they coalesce into gravitationally unified structures, or stellar systems, from which subsequent processes of thermonuclear fusion, arising as the result of tremendous gravitational pressures, result in the formation of higher numbered elements.

Very large gravitational conglomerations of heavier matter result eventually in the formation of very dense entities that have a permanent life-span.

Chunks of heavy matter that exist and float in space-time, may be very, very old. Even the earth itself must originally have formed in a previous star system and represents either a captured planetoid or a subsequent conglomeration of particulate mass in its current solar configuration.

The observable structures of the universe are probably much older, and far larger in distribution, than conservative estimates of contemporary physicists would attribute, especially within the framework of a big bang model. The total universe is in fact infinitely old and infinitely vast, and its observable formations themselves are much older than we may yet want to believe.

The unified field I take to be the entire containing volume of the total universe. This field structure is non-empty in the basic sense that it appears to be composed of a fundamental medium, a medium I call "spime" as a portmanteau of space-time. This medium is the mother of all known physical phenomena and entities/processes that we are familiar with. This unified field appears dynamic in the sense that it has properties of being bendable, possibly stretchable, and also, it appears, fluid dynamic in the sense that if flows continuously, though this flow occurs at a level below that of the propagation of light, it appears to affect the motional trajectories of large objects of matter, and hence the motional dynamics of all forms of matter. There is a point of analysis of the unified field that it constitutes a system that is characterized by complementary relationships between components that cannot be clearly or definitely analyzed. Gravitation is a case in point, because in one way it appears to be isomorphic (i.e., identical to the structure of space-time itself) and yet in another way to behave as a form of energy that is contained within the volume created by space-time. There is a sense that space-time is both a container of other things like energy and matter, and is contained, perhaps by itself as a self-containing entity. As something that is contained or at least self-contained, it appears to exhibit a set of independent, state-bound properties. The problem in considering the unified field seems to be to that of separating clearly the field and its intrinsic properties from the events and things it contains and therefore universally constrains. Ultimately, it appears, we cannot fully separate this background field from the event structures that it contains and that are constrained by it. For instance, are photons that propagate through this field merely vibratory resonances of the field itself, or are they event-entities that are separable from the space-time field matrix that they contain. That the velocity of light is fixed and uniform suggests for instance that all light is enmeshed, and possibly embedded in an intrisnic sense, in this background field structure.

The key question is whether or not the background universal field is indeed unified or not, and therefore whether we are justified in calling it a "unified field." We assume it is in a fundamental and local sense, but we would be hard pressed to prove it or demonstrate it in a cosmological or universal way. We assume it must hang together in some fundamental way because we cannot imagine any abrupt discontinuities of its structure--light for instance is observed to travel vast distances of space and time, and we appear to find nowhere, except in the confines of a black hole, where it suddenly "falls over" an edge to disappear forever. If there are discontinuities of structure of the unified field, then we assume that these must occur on a scale so small that we cannot direct see or even measure their effects in a clear way. It is possible that upon a fundamental level, for instance, the universe may be quite "porous" with many tiny little dimensionless holes of "nothingness." This would perhaps account for the fluid dynamic structure of fundamental space-time. But in a larger overall sense, we cannot assume a unified structure or system. It appears for instance, that there is some scale large enough, beyond which we cannot assume gravitational unification of systems, and many clusters and super-clusters appear to hang together independently of one another across vast empty stretches. This does not mean that there may not be even larger unified gravitational structures. It appears that it is the nature of gravitational systems to become self-organizing and unified over time, and this is regardless of whether there exists a dominant gravitating body in a system or merely a complex of mutually interacting bodies of more or less equivalent size and gravitational magnitudes. We must speculate therefore whether the universe may not have achieved such unification over very vast distances, or possibly, it has achieved it, but this unification exists beyond our sphere of observational power. If we look at systems 10 billion light-years in age/distance, we must understand that 10 billion years ago the universe may not have achieved the degree of gravitational unification that occurs in the simultaneous system that we can assume to exist contemporaneously with our own. The appearance of relative uniformity and organization of the Milky Way galaxy, for instance, even though its breadth covers an age of 75 million years, suggests that locally this system has been unified in a stable manner for a very long time.

My interest in undertaking this work is to develop a more coherent field theory about what can be said to form the physical substrate of the universe. The central question has been "how does the total universe hold itself together in a self-consistent way?" How can it occur in an inferentially and hypothetically instantaneous and integrated system, especially if it must obey the space-time constraints set down in general relativity theory?

My answer to these basic questions has been that it doesn't necessarily obey the space-time constraints of general relativity, at least on its most basic levels of phenomenal process. This implies a whole level of physical patterning, far below that of the atom and its constituent elements, that we do not seem to be able to directly observe, and yet upon which we must rely so much for our accounting of gravitation and the constraints of space-time itself. Among many other possibilities, it suggests that some form of almost instantaneous transmission of basic elements may occur continuously and pervasively within the universe. This process constitutes the invisible background field from which all known physical particles, energies and their associated properties are configured and reconfigured in neverending rounds of continuous creation and destruction.

The reconciliation of cosmological theories rooted upon general relativity and quantum mechanical theory, particularly in resolving a unified field theory, has been an important development in theoretical physcis. I developed my spime-mechanical model of the dynamic-state universe independently of the knowledge of superstring theory, mainly to address the issue of gravitational unification in the large rather than in the small. I have subsequently encountered string theory and it is quite evident that Physics has been leaning heavily in the direction of unification for a couple of decades now.

I accept most aspects of string theory, and do not find it incompatible with the notion of a spime mechanical model. How we conceptualize constituent entities on the smallest imaginable scales in the universe perhaps makes little difference in our models. If we see fundamental particles as closed loop strings the properties of which are based upon the shape of vibrations, or if we see these particles as spinning composite entities that beget vibrations, it perhaps makes little ultimate difference.

I propose a "spring" theory, that is somewhere intermediate between a string and a spining thing. I propose a spinning helice as the appropriate structure for this level of reality, that I have called spime. In fact, I hypothesized a closed loop chain interlinkages for my 'nth-particulates, and it is at this level that strings and spime appear to converge as the same entities. I proposed a "spring" shape primarily because it provides a sense of vibration defined by oscillation about an axis, and it provides a sense of instantaneous direction that such an entity may take. Furthermore, it is a half-open type of structure, which entails that it can connect and interpenetrate other similar structures quite readily.

Thus, vibratory resonance patterning of strings would be and essentially are the equivalent of spin-resonance patterning of particulate entities. Springs are a good intermediate model.

I have gone one step beyond string theory. I do not see the Planck length as a necessary fundamental size limitation to the physical structure of the universe. I do not think a string or a spring, or whatever we would want to conceptualize and name this order of reality, is necessarily irreducible in some self-consistent and fundamental sense. What is found in the texture of physical reality is an inherent constituency of structure, or stratification of order, at all levels. Furthermore, postulating such a fundamental entity invites back the conundrums of a zero-state universe that I dealt with in the previous related work, Cosmology and Reality.

I have therefore accepted a model of the fabric of reality as constituting a well system of ever finer constituent entities, each of which is used to construct, and hence analytically explain, the complex combination of properties, particles and forces at the next higher level. At each level of analytical reduction in our explanation, we will encounter some kind of "entity-energy" that will need explaining in terms of some constituent structure. If we adopt a fundamental self consistent model somewhere along the way, we are closing the universe fundamentally, and failing to explain in a mechanical manner either the origins of the fundamental particles or ultimately of the universe itself.

In fact, at each level, we find not only increasing orders of stratification by size, but we find pattern variation at each level, much of which tends to be idiosyncratic and chaotically relative to that analytical order of reductionistic explanation. Variation of pattern at each level is a function of its constituency, such that eventually, with decreasing orders of scale, we should in theory get simpler and less variable patterns. The fact that we may hypothesize a number of sub-atomic particles can be taken as direct confirmatory evidence of the constituency of these entities. The fact that quarks themselves may be arranged in families suggests a string-like constituency of their structure as well.

At the bottom of the well of physical reality, I hypothesize a "Zeroth entity" that is homogeneous and unitary, with out any self-defining characteristics except perhaps for one or two intrinsic properties. But if we hypothesize even a Zeroth entity, the law of universal symmetry might entail an anti-zero particle as well, and we may eventually discover that the order at which we are defining our alleged zeroth particle actually comprises a whole spectrum of new variations on a zeroth-theme. Thus, such a Zeroth entity is a hypothetical construct that approaches what I would call cosmic singularity but never quite reaches that point.

The Zeroth entity really chases the question of cosmic singularity and a zero-state universe on an infinitely receding horizing, or in a receding bottomless well system. It is really our short-hand way of accounting for all that remains unknown by lumping it all into a global or cosmic variable, that I will designate as x, or rather, for the residual of things that are needed before our scientific equations are really complete or really completely unified.

From our perspective, we impose limits of the very large and the very small to the structure and size of our universe and the reality it contains. But if we accept the possibility of an infinite universe, then it is likely that it is infinite in every way we can think of--extensively, eternally, intensively and dimensionally, at least. We can see that our well system never really diminishes, as size and scale themselves become relative to the level at which we are dealing.

If we look in the other way, out across the vast corridors of space-time to the edges of our known universe, it is likely that we are failing to comprehend physical properties and larger scale patterns of organization that constitutes what we see in some larger system or metasystem of relations. We can depict such a view as below:

What we must realize is the fundamental anthropological relativity of our physical reality, and hence the universal relativity of size-scale from our own relative frame of reference. A universe composed of zeroth-entities is equal in scale and vastness to a meta-universe made up of multiple universes, and both these are equal in scale and scope to a classically human order universe that we experience with our naked eye and with our feet. We must come to the realization eventually that in the larger structure of reality, size perhaps makes no fundamental difference, but defines parallel realities that cooccur simultaneously in the same instantaneous manner, albeit at different orders or scales of measurement, and from a human standpoint at least, measurability.

In understanding this concept, I put forward the model of the measurable universe as related fundamentally to the inferential and observable universe, and as perhaps being an intermediate between these two constructs.

In this model of the dynamic-state universe, "mini-dimensionalities" embedded in a complex space-time at different levels or orders may in fact be possible. What appears homogeneous, non-isotropic and steady-state at one level, may in fact be heterogeneous, isotropic and chaotic at another level. It is evident as well that though all the structure of the universe shares the same instantaneous continuum, or what I will call the simultaneous universal continuum. This complex, stratified and multidimensional structural continuum is the same for all realities at whatever level of our analysis. They all occur simultaneously in the same hyper-volumetric space. They are separated by orders of scale and size, which appear to be fundamentally important dimensions.

There is no reason to think that the properties of space and time, as we construe these and understand these in terms of general relativity, hold true equally or the same at all levels of reality. I hypothesize that universal relativity holds that these properties are relative to the analytical level that we are dealing with, and vary depending on the scale of measurement we treat. This is a central hypothesis of universal relativity which defeats the classical cosmological principle and that makes necessary a dynamic cosmology.

These principles are mandated by logic, if we accept the hypothesis of a non-zero state universe that automatically implies an infinite state universe. To see the universe in any other form would be illogical unless we hypothesize a zero-state structure.

The basis for a general field theory, as proposed within this book, is the assertion that all reality is cooccurring at multiple levels simultaneously in the universe. This can be proven, I believe, by simple logic and reason alone, without having to resort to elegant but opaque physical theories or supercomplex mathematical formulas. When we look at the light from stars 16 billion years old, what we see is a figment of a long gone past. It exists as starlight in some kind of coherent field, but it does not exist as something that can be inferred as contemporaneously "out there" at this passing instant. What actually exists at this moment out there is unknown, but we can infer that there must be something out there by the fact of our receiving the starlight in the first place. Universal instantaneity or simultaneity of a cooccurring universe is a principle upon which our continuum of reality depends, and which we cannot forego in a logical way with sacrificing the fundamental coherence of the structural integrity of reality or the universe as a minimally integrated system.

The congruence of structure of the total universe, in terms of physical properties, is what underlies the order and structural patterning of the instantaneous continuum of reality in the first place. If we imagine fundamental disconnections or discontinuities of structure in the universe, that cannot be integrated on some level of analysis, then we are imposing a model of a zero-state universe beyond which we can neither see nor think. If other worlds existed beyond such a universe, it would be irrelevant because we could never know these in any fundamental way. They could at best be only imaginable state universes, and hence would be fundamentally non-scientific constructs.

The instantaneous continuum of the universe appears to be integrated within a common temporal dimension, but I wish to demonstrate that this sense of temporality is really relative to the level of our analysis and does not hold either for the very small or the very large. What is common to the integration of this continuum is its instantaneity of structure that is universally cooccurring. Evolution as we understand our own observable, classic scale universe to be undergoing, does not necessarily apply in the same way to the very large or the very small. Everything must cooccur at the same instant, at all levels, in all places, but that doesn't mean that everything necessarily is traveling in the same temporal dimension.

One basic principle seems to me to be necessary in this model of hierarchically stratified pattern of physical reality. We can state is simply as: "Large things/processes are composed of smaller things/processes." It follows from this general observation that all macroscopically observed patterns and processes are derivative of and analytically explanable in terms of the microscopic patterns and processes of which they are composed. This appears to be true even though analytical explanation alone may be insufficient to the total explanation of the process without reference to interrelationship or interaction between entities and processes.

We might turn it into a kind of logical paradigm as follows:

All things or processes in the universe are composite.

There are therefore no essential self-consistent things or processes in the universe and the universe itself is both non-zero state and infinite state.

I believe this is the logical basis for the notion of universal relativity in a non-zero state model of the universe. In other words, all events and entities are relative to the framework in which they occur, and which they themselves create as a function of their composite makeup or constituency.

In a universally relative structure, time and space itself, as dimensions, are relative to the framework at which they are manifested as constraints. In an absolute sense, they can be thought of as dimensionless attributes or constraints that define in a basic way the framework of event patterning and analysis in which they occur or become expressed. If they are dimensionless attributes in a negative sense of their machian relativity to the things and events that they constrain in the physical world and by which they gain expression, then in a positive sense they may also be multidimensional characteristics in that they may be basic variables which may occupy any possible number of alternative state-values. Time and space may in fact be quite rubbery objective properties of the basic substrate of physical reality.

In this regard, we might state the following kinds of propositions:

1. The smaller the entity/event, the less spatially constrained is the event.

2. The smaller the entity/event, the more temporally constrained is the event.

We might reverse this kind of order in thinking about very large systems and hypothesize that large systems are more spatially contrained, but less temporally constained. If we go to the largest and smallest limits of size imaginable, we can say that at the largest scale, time has no value whatsoever, or is relatively timeless in dimensionality, and on the smallest scale space has no value whatsoever, or is relatively spaceless. Perhaps this hypothesized relativity of space-time is connected to the known Lorenz transformations, such that we experience spatial compression and time dilation depending upon the relative state of motion of the system.

We can never ultimately prove or disprove this set of presuppositions. It can only be derived by inductive inference from observations we make about known physical entities and events, all of which reveal or at least suggest a complex composite structure of patterning at whatever analytic level we are dealing.

Thus, integration of the universe is about the universal instantaneity of its continuous structure at multiple levels of possible analysis and observation. The relative values of basic dimensions of space and time shift with changing levels of systemic organization of physical structure. The field we seek to explain is the instantaneous field that is created continuously in the now that represents the simultaneous integration of the entire universe at multiple levels of event organization. This field contains an infinite amount of information. It contains information about the deepest past. It may contain information about the widest present, and possibly, if we knew how to read and see it, information about the furthest future.

In answer to our original question, it appears as if I have endowed the apparently empty field of space-time with some intrinsic characteristics or properties, which endowment suggests that this field is not nothing in some absolute sense, but something in a relative sense. The basis of this work in Field Theory is to seek to explain as much as possible what this relative somethingness about space-time is. I do not believe that science can deliver any final answers at this time upon this subject, as there is still much that we do not understand about physical reality and the structure of the universe that would permit us this kind of understanding in our scientific quest. But even if we cannot answer the questions fully, part of the solution is in being able to answer the right kinds of questions in the first place.

*****

I seek to impose a fundamental dichotomization of structure to this instantaneous field that I hypothesize occurs at all levels, and is a residuum of its internal stratification and intrinsic variability of pattern. This dichotomization is one of a figure-field relationship that I take to govern the instantaneous patterning of the universal field. It imposes a fundamental isomorphic conformity of structure that seems spatially defined by size and scale, at all levels. This isomorphism entails a kind of universal consistency of pattern that interlinks all the levels that occur in the universe in a coordinated, albeit infinitely complex manner. Figure-field relations are differential distributions of physical reality that are structurally isomorphic in an intantaneous sense at all levels of reality. These relations are inherently dynamic and hence are always changing, regardless of other change dynamics or temporal dimensions or constraints occurring at different levels of reality.

Generally, a figure-field relation can be said to be a complex pattern of the emergence of some kind of configurational pattern in contradistinction and interaction to the background field of relationships within which that configuration arose and within which it becomes defined. Such patterns are never permanent, and always in the long run fluctuate.

This fundamental dichotomous structure is basically antinomial in the Cartesian sense. To say one came first or the other, or that one is more basic is to beg the essential question that they constitute together a cooccurring system of relationships that tend to complexity rather than simplicity.

Internal dichotomization is structurally necessary for any system to occur that is informationally interesting in the minimal sense possible. It is by such a means that something can become differentiated from itself, as relative to itself in some essential sense. Without it, we end up with absolute singularity that implies, among other things, changelessness, pure homogeneity, and ultimately, nothing.

Logically, I would like to say that nothing is impossible except perhaps as a unrealizable abstraction--it is a residuum of our own intellectual abilities, at most. If nothing is impossible, it logically follows that the universe must be non-zero state. This is a radical approach to cosmology and reality, but, I believe, a necessary one if we are to arrive at a unified field construct that is fully scientific and sufficient to the task of describing the whole of the universe and all of physical reality.

This work is about the hypothetical field structure of the universe based upon the model of its instantaneous and continuous patterning. This field structure has not been well understood yet in a number of ways. For instance, how is it that multiple energies can appear to cooccur and be expressed, at multiple levels, in the same spaces at the same time?

*****

Space-time as this is normally construed, with all its gravitational ripples and convolutions, may be really not unlike the reflective surface of a large pool of water. Classical relativistic models see this construct as the surface of an elastic balloon that is either expanding or contracting. The attribution of elasticity to classical space-time is an intrinsic property of its relativistic definition. This elasticity is usually regarded as a one-way and universally homogeneous process, based upon presuppositions of large-scale homogeneity and non-isotropism of structure of physical reality. If we remove these presumptions, we can see that elasticity might occur both ways simultaneously, if we assume a basic principle of universal reciprocity, just as it appears to do in local spaces in non-reciprocal ways. The give and take of space-time in different quarters or sectors of the universe may in fact result in a net balancing out, or "flattening" of the entire field structure.

To see space-time as we experience this gravitationally as the surface of an infinitely deep reservoir that unfolds in at least 4 if not five dimensions simultaneously, is to cast our entire universe in a new cosmological frame of reference. When we travel, we are planning upon its surface, and the speed of light sets a certain limit on to how fast we might plane upon the surface. We can only submerge into its depths by penetrating the surface structure somehow, and once submerged, we might discover the normal space-time constraints that governed our possibilities no longer applicable, at least not in the same form or to the same degree. In a sense, time itself would almost appear to cease, and possibly even at times flow backward as we ourselves happened in reverse.

The depths of space-time are a relativistic medium that is cast in a fifth dimensional framework, or what might be called a quintessential dimension.

I have hypothesized that its properties were are that of a universally integrated negative energy field that always balanced the positive energies that are required to overcome the field inertia associated with acceleration and change. It is a form of energy that is everywhere and always reciprocal, such that its effects happened both ways simultaneously. Things interact with one another in equal and balanced measure due indirectly to the reciprocal effects of the background energy field in which they arise. This background energy field is also infinitely deep and hence it is an infinite reservoir of potential yet unrealized and mostly unrealizable energy.

We might say in the observed universal effects of thermodynamic entropy in the universe are the consequence of positive physical energy states yielding up its energy by increasing degrees to this background negative reservoir, in an ultimate sense. The inherently random and chaotic patterning of ordered phenomena decaying to non-linear and disordered state trajectories, can be understood as part of this balance exchange as well. And if we are to undertand gravitational equilibrium & unification, or alternatively, even charge balance, we can most effectively do so from the standpoint of this negative energy background field.

In a sense, the apparent emptiness of space-time can be seen as a hole of energy that is required to be filled in with mass and charge in order to produce some form of positive physical effect. The more mass and charge we supply to the hole, in concentrated forms, larger the endproduct we can observe.

In a sense, an object of matter that has mass exhibits a degree of "bouyancy" on the surface of this field, sustained as it is by the fieldlines that interconnected everything within it. We can say that the larger the mass object, the deeper the hole that it leaves within the negative field and the greater the amount of negative displacement it results in. Gravity systems are the consequence of this kind of displacement.

We really have a glimpse at the background substrate of the universe when we observe fundamental elementary particles and their behavior. We can infer this background field from the effects it leaves upon electromagnetic energy, or the effects thermodynamic energy leaves upon this field, and also in terms of gravitational effects of all kinds. A total accounting of all these different kinds of physical phenomena cannot be made adequately if we do not infer such a field.

This field is always integrated at all times, and it serves always to embed all things within it in a consistent and coherent way. There can be no structural space-time discontinuities occurring between that object and the field in which it is embedded or between any other objects within that field. Any such object must behave in certain predictable and mechanical ways in irreversible time and irreversible motion with a finite measure of mass and a relative state of temperature. These effects occur, I propose, because they are non-reciprocal transition or change effects in space-time. These effects only arise as the result of special binding characteristics, or properties associated with particular kinds of bound states that are relatively stable and predictable. Otherwise, space-time or "spime" as an "entity-energy" remains only partially or minimal spin bound, which is presumably parallel binding to its main axis.

The object of this book is to explain in as much nontrivial detail as possible, and as concisely as possible, the following:

1. The way that the universal background field achieves its integration and unification, especially in an instantaneous sense.

2. The way that different forms of energy and mass are maintained, realized, interact and become integrated within this background field.

3. The structure and shape of this background field in a cosmological framework.

4. The fundamental structure and systematics of this background field in a quantum framework.

5. The historical evolution and dynamic fluctuation of this background field, especially in terms of its state-transition dynamics and its spatial-temporal stratification.

Relativity theory made classical field theory unnecessary in the geometrical accounting of space-time as a self-consistent and a priori construct, but it left unanswered the question of a unified field that integrated especially the charge dynamics of electromagnetism. It left space-time as an empty field that obeyed rather deterministic structural patterns, albeit in fundamentally relative ways. Carrying this conceptioning of empty space-time to its logical limits brought theoretical physics to the end-point of singularity and to basic boundaries that we could not escape.

I put forward the proposition that we cannot entertain a full field accounting of the physical structure and pattern of reality and the universe, unless and until we adopt some form of field theory that is based upon a composite or constituent structure of the space-time construct. The space-time cannot be empty and do all the things that we expect it to. It cannot be only a void and still have all the properties that we attribute to it. And it is only by redefining the structure of space-time itself that we can then see how gravitation arises in the background field as a function of the interaction of this field to the matter and energy that exists within it. This is a big paradigmatic leap of faith that most who were trained in the classical relativity model will refuse to make.

If we are to resolve the logical conundrums and some empirical and observational inconsistencies of classical relativity theory, then we must step beyond the paradigmatic presuppositions and boundaries of this theory to embrace a more reasonable model of its basic structure and patterning.

In place of general relativity, which I hold to be true as a covering law model of the observational universe especially, I have proposed the principles of universal relativity. This paradigm states, ultimately, that there is a fundamental equivalence between space-time, or what I call spime, and the energy and matter that is embedded within it. We can understand this equivalence in terms of balance theory, or a form of universal equilibrium that states that there will always be a net conservation of both positive and negative forms of energy in any transition effect. These forms can be expressed differentially as either charge, mass or spin, which is the mechanical equivalent of both motion and change. Hence, all positive transition effects occurring in terms of any form of energy or matter in the universe, always occur and are configured within the same universal background field that can be assumed to be minimally integrated and therefore theoretically coherent. This background field is completely isomorphic with the total universe, including all possible sub-universes embedded within it. Hence, we may state the following principles:

Any two systems or more systems that occur and happen uniformly to one another in the same universal framework must obey the same basic physical principles.

It can be logically concluded from this that the principle of universal congruence applies to the entire universe, and in a minimal sense of its basic universal background structure, the total universe is relatively homogeneous and non-isotropic according to a revised cosmological principle. Indeed, this is exactly how the integrated universal field appears in structure. In essence, I will state that all physical systems can be accounted for in terms of a theory of universal equilibrium that states that there is always a net balance in all change dynamics and energy transactions that occur in the universe. Thus we can hypothesize a law of universal conservation.

All systems seek ultimately a state of perfect equilibrium with the universal background field in which these systems arise and take shape. This equilibrium tends towards complexity in natural systems, rather than simplicity. Hence the universe is growing increasingly dynamic.

We can express this sense of dynamic equilibrium of the structure of physical reality in the following way: The positive state universe is thermodynamic in non-reciprocal ways, hence it is always entropic. But positive reality is always in complementary balance with a negative state universe that is non-thermodynamic in reciprocal ways. Hence it is always counter-entropic in its end effects. Positive and negative state universes always complement and balance one another out in the larger structure. If we measure the positive mass of a large sphere, we must understand gravitational energies associated with that mass as arising from the negative mass-energy of the space-time manifold in which that large sphere comes to displace, and always displaces. In a dynamic state universe, therefore, non-reciprocal transition effects, or changes, always result in disequilibrium and relative imbalance between the system and its background. These effects result in basic state changes in the balance and patterning of the universe--hence, the universe evolves in a manner that is defined by chance alone.

My point of departure in this book, in my universal and unified field accounting, is to claim that in fact the positive state universe is but a subset of the negative state universe, one among many possible alternative subsets. Furthermore, the negative-state universe is itself complexly stratified and internally dynamic in important ways. One consequence is that if we experience the universe to be expanding, the basis of this apparent expansion is probably due to the creative and anti-entropic consequences of its main constituent construct, space-time, which leads to the creation of something from apparent nothing.

Thus, in the largest sense, the fundamental laws of equilibrium and conservation are violated in a relativistic way, and this is only accountable by the presupposition of an infinite-state universe.

And what is true of the largest scale in the universe, is accounted for by the smallest scale possible in the structure of reality, or in the substantial fabric of space-time itself. This is the instantaneous possibility of its smallest entity--the Zeroth Entity that always exists only relatively as a constituent of a constituent construct. The Zeroth entity can be anywhere and everywhere at one time, hence it is, relativistically speaking, nowhere at any one time. It is the basis for the fieldlines that tie the entire universe together in a minimally integrated manner, fieldlines that are based upon the fundamental spin synchronization, hence the gravitational unification, of the Zeroth Entity.

The Zeroth Entity can be said to approximate the singularity principle in a universally relativistic manner. It constitutes the fundamental event horizon of the structural integration of the physical universe. It can be said to exist before and beyond both time and space, as we experience these things. We can say that the zeroth entity only approximates the singularity principle because in fact in its constituent structure it always approaches, but never reaches, this principle. It reaches a level of patterning and an order of the universe that is without a definable point, but of infinite uniformity and homogeneity of structure. At this point, all accounting comes to a stop, as there is nothing significant left remaining to account for. We can say that the zeroth entity, in its nth-constituency, is just next to nothing in a residual sense.

We can say that the Zeroth Entity has at least two determinants that define it. These two defining determinants are the following:

1. In all the omnidirectionality of its possible fieldlines, it is capable of expressing itself in a single, infinitely definite direction. It can therefore generate perfectly linear fieldlines that extend forever in any possible direction.

2. All Zeroth Entities in their ultimate state have a basic monopolar spin characteristic that is always uniform and continuous. If such a spin characteristic fluctuates, it fluctuates in harmonic resonance with all other spin characteristics in an equal manner such that there is no difference occuring between them.

We can understand zeroth fieldlines as themselves composite constructs in an already unified field. These stretch in any and all directions forever, and exist instantaneously out of both time and space. Propagation occurs across the main axis, and perturbation, resulting in "attraction" occurs across the transverse acess. This is the warp and weft of the fabric of physical reality defining the foundation of its integration.

The concept of the Zeroth entity, as a relative constituent construct, suggests the possibility of singularity that would entail a form of zero-state boundedness to the universe. But the concept can be seen in a hen and egg way, if we can imagine that possibly the very largest and the very smallest of scales of reality suddenly merge and become one--isomorphic to one another in everyway. This is a paradox, but we can picture it if we imagine out diagram above connected into a cylinder:

From this model, we can conjecture several possibilities:

1. The first is that the universe grew increasingly dynamic and differentiated at multiple levels. Else, it was perhaps dynamic fundamentally in its states, altering these states as time goes by, but not in the dynamic complexity of its overall constituent continuum.

2. The second possibility is that the continuum itself may twist in different ways or even loop back upon itself such that the ends of the cyclinder above describe a torus or donut, and possibly, a complex kind of Mobius strip. We could only speculate what this may mean for our dynamics. I would conjecture that it suggests that we live in a world of a past dimension that is observationally available to us, and in which a present dimension is logically inferable but observationally unavailable. Then there may be a futureward dimensionality in which the processes of time (or naturalistically, of change) may in fact reverse themselves. This possibility would suggest that the total universe might be in fact self-contained either temporally or spatially, or both, though we might never know this from our own point of view. It might be a form of relative boundness in which the very large unites with the very small and the very distant unites with the very proximate in space-time. Infinity would be bound within a closed system, relative to that system, and at the same time the boundary conditions would be made relative to the intrinsic infinity.

3. The cylinder might in fact be open and continuous on both ends, or even branching as a structure that leads to alternative universes. From this, we could conjecture that there may in fact be n-number of alternative total universes, that were connected historically in time, but may be currently or futurewardly unconnected or reconnected.

Of course, conjecturing on past states of the universe is irrelevant to the consideration of the current field-state, except that past states may provide our only empirical handle to our understanding of the current field. Past states would imply dynamical aspects of a changing universe, and implies that indeed, in the perspective of time at least, there are multiple alternative universes available to us at some point. The critical question is to ask how the universe is changing in terms of its observable past states and its inferable current states--in otherwords, what are the relational dynamics of its universal field?

As a field theory, I am particularly interested in the unification of covering law models relating to gravitation and electromagnetic energy, on the one hand, and both these forms of energy with models of mass-based matter, on the other hand. I express these relations in terms of their interactions with and within a fourth construct, and that is with space-time itself, and this provides the fundamental foundation for their relativistic unification. Furthermore, this accounting must be carried both to the very largest and the very smallest of scales in a consistent and coherent manner in keeping with quantum mechanics.

Understanding of the integration of the universe concomittantly implies understanding the inherent stratification of the universe at the same time. This is an important consideration. I have proposed, as an inherent part of our empirical and theoretical description of the total universe based upon prinicples of universal relativity, that there is a natural well system of the ordering of natural phenomena at different levels, largely conditioned by relative size, determinancy and inherent energetic properties. Generally, I would claim that basic intrinsic properties, like time, space, change, energy, are fundamentally relative to the level at which they are measured and analyzed. Thus such properties take on fundamentally different dimensionalities and characteristics depending upon the level at which we are working. The entire universe looks very differently at the level of the subatomic particle, or at the hypothetical level of spime and strings, than at the level of our own everyday world, or, on a grander scale, at the galactic level. In general, the emergent principles and properties that are relevant at one level are not relevant at another level.

This issue leaves us with a profound dilemma that if the total universe is in fact infinite and non-zero state, then the number of possible levels that the universe incorporates as a total system, either extensively or intensively in relation to ourselves, is also fundamentally infinite. I find this an incredibly beguiling concept to try to imagine. Science seeks simplification in the long run. Hence it is prone to accept conservative models and reject those models which defy our attempts at theoretical generalization and simplification. But it appears as if reality and the universe may be handing to us, in the intrinsic characteristics of its most fundamental properties, a fundamentally and infinitely complex set of things to wonder about.

This leads to another paradox about the ultimate relativity of our knowledge. No matter what kinds of universal principles we may posit for our inferable universe based upon our observational sphere, we can never be sure ultimately if these same principles will hold for the entire system of the total universe, or are at some level limited in some way that we do not realize. In a universe that is universally relative to itself, even its most basic and universal laws of order are liable to be constrained to a relative context that represents a subset of the total system of relations that might be possible.

Only one set of things we can be sure of, and that is no matter how large, infinite, complex and chaotic the total universe may be, it must be founded upon some principles of minimal order and integrity as a comprehensive system. It must be minimally integrated somehow. If it is not, then we must talk about n-possible state universes that are fundamentally disconnected. We cannot talk scientifically about such alternative disconnected state universes, as we could never be sure that they existed or not. Hence, they are irrelevant to a scientific view of our reality. We are only left with a conundrum of having to pose a fundamental structure of reality even if we cannot ultimately know what this fundamental structure may really be.

*****

Where did it all come from in the ultimate sense? I can only say it all arose by chance, a kind of strange chance defined by possibilistics which states that because there cannot be nothing in non-relative sense, there was therefore always something in a relative sense. A derivation of this kind of possibilistics is to state that there was no beginning and will be no end to things--things are and happen because they are. Another way of looking at this is perhaps to state that differentiation is naturally preferred over homogeneity, complexity over simplicity, and chaos over order. A perfectly and absolutely ordered universe would logically be a changeless, static, and totally homogenous affair. In other words, there would be nothing interesting or distinguishing about it. It would be absolutely flat and devoid of any characteristics or properties. It would be the equivalent of nothing at all.

The scientific origin myth of the grand circle of the universe is to state that perhaps the sphere of reality, in the total sense, is like a huge lion that is always chasing itself about its own tail, never catching up with itself. If it caught up with itself, then it would swallow itself up and then everything would suddenly stop and return to nothingness once again.

Gravitational unification appears to be a non-instantaneous system of structuring in the universe, depending upon a certain type of gravitational flow of space-time and the fluid dynamic structure of the space-time manifold. There may occur another level of gravitational interdependency that is instantaneous and possibly universal in effect, and which can be referred to as the string structure of the unified background field. Relations occurring at this level would be considered instantaneous and propagating at an infinite speed, and would provide the basis for assuming universal relativity and a simultaneous state universe. In other words, at all times, in all directions, the universe as a background field would be considered to be unified in a coherent manner.

We may say, for instance, that the unified field is in a fundamental system universally the same everywhere. The same laws of mass and motion, of gravitational and thermodynamics, apply everywhere equally, though these laws appear to be relative to the scale and size of event structure that they occur upon. There would be no place or framework within the universe that we could travel to to escape these kinds of basic constraints, even if we traveled forever in any given direction. This constitutes the basis for assuming universal relativity, as in a basic sense we can predict the laws of mechanics and dynamics of event structures wherever these may occur, and even if we cannot directly observe their occurrence. Even if the universe proves to be heterogeneously and multi-dimensionally complex in its overall patterning and sense of order, we an still assume that universal relativity holds in a fundamental sense everywhere, equally.

The conclusion is therefore that the universe is composed of a uniform and universal background field upon a fundamental level far smaller than that of any known subatomic particle, and this constitutes an order and level of reality that, like matter, and energy, is a fundamental aspect or basic form of the physical universe. We assume a universal equivalence between spime, or the stuff of space-time, energy and matter, and hence regular transactions between these three alternative forms. Gravitational interactions can be said to be the consequence and evidence for these kinds of fundamental interactions between the three different forms of physical reality. These interactions in turn determine the relative flow structures of this fundamental form of physical reality. More to the point, all known forms of positive energy and matter arise from and interact gravitationally with this basic form of spime, and if we are to seek a causal explanation for the rise of the universe as we observe it, it must be in terms of these fundamental interactions and their long term, large scale consequences. For instance, a proton may be said to be a consequence of particle pair formation and interaction in certain conditions of convergence of electromagnetic radiation, that itself may be said to be the spontaneous consequence of certain conditions of gravitational flux and interaction. If a proton is a very stable composite entity defined by the relative point motions of the subatomic entities composing it, namely a positron with associated muons/neutrinos that form quark like structures, then we can understand that they can be produced under certain conditions that may from our vantage point appear highly unusual or unlikely, but which in the larger frame of the universe may in fact be quite common and pervasive in occurrence.

It may be the case that this level of spime may in fact be directly unobservable or unavailable to our ability to observe it, either directly or indirectly, except in terms of inferences we can draw from the patterning of its consequences (i.e., gravitational systems and effects.) 
This may be why we have been unable to observe quarks in our experiments. This indeed appears to be the case, and there are some common gravitational phenomena that can be parsimoniously and logically explained in no other terms than the interactions of spime with matter and energy.

We may conclude also that spime contains a great deal of inherent or intrinsic or potential energy as well as mass that remains essentially invisible. This energy and negative mass is felt in terms of inertia of energy and mass, and in terms of the entropy effects of positive energy in the background field. This negative energy and mass may be said to be inherent or latent to the background structure of the unified field, 

If this is the case, we must also assume that spime itself may be a compositely structured phenomena, and that it may in effect be the consequence, as a system of some more basic form or strata of reality that we can scarcely imagine. It is at this level that we can possibly conclude that the universe as we know it may be fundamentally and multidimensionally more complex than we can see or directly infer, and that there may be multiple universes interpenetrating, though beyond the reach of our own physical form.

A consequence is that we can imagine no coordinate or no place or time in the universe that exists outside of or in a manner that is not fundamentally constrained by the background, unified field.

Time is our measurement of change, and change, not time, is intrinsic to the processes of the universe. These change processes tend to be systematic in a predictive and measureable manner, at least upon some non-fundamental scales of measurement. Change occurs at differential, usually non-linear rates, as measured by time, at different scales of measurement, and these rates themselves may be complexly determined by a number of interdependent variables. In physical systems, we may speculate upon different kinds of change processes occurring. From a purely structural point of view, all change can only operate within a paradigm of a limited number of possibilities--for instance change as an increase or decrease in rate, and lead to developmental or evolutionary transformations, toward increasing order, or alternative towards disordered states or entropy, or towards a steady state of relative non-change, punctuated or periodic change.

We do not have a real theory of measured change in our physical systems. Is it additive in the manner that mass seems to be, or is it relative to the scale and size of the event structure upon which it occurs, or at least, at which it is measured. It is apparent for instance, that large scale change events tend to be composite structures of smaller change events that may occur at much faster rates. Even large scale event structures that happen very rapidly, or in an explosive manner, may in fact be composite structures made up of many tinier and much more rapid change event structures. We may look at all of physical reality and the processes that constitute this from the standpoint of such change event structures. Motion is really a change event structure through space and time, constrained as it is by certain rules and forces, by mass, inertia and direction, by velocity and acceleration. When we watch an object traveling through space, we presume that it is in motion and changing in its coordinates relative to the rest of the universe, but if we were on the object, our perspective may change, and we may instead bear witness to the shifting of the entire universe while we ourselves appeared to be stationary or relatively motionless. We recognize the motion of the object because the intrinsic integrity, shape and properties of the object appear to remain constant or relatively unaltered, though its extrinsic relationship with the larger world appears to shift radically.

I would state the following proposition of universal relativity regarding the structure of the universe and of physical reality. 

1. First, the same fundamental processes and principles that apply in our corner of the universe, apply in all corners of the universe. The same matter, energy and dynamics that occur in our solar system occur in varied form in all solar systems. Only if intensive boundaries of physical reality are discovered, by which additional dimensions or alternative realities are connected, can we extend our universe in a manner that would make it a more complex, heterogeneous and interesting place.

2. The universe occurs simultaneously, at the same instant, everywhere, and continues evolving in every corner at the same time. We assume that simultaneous events are fundamentally independent events, and this independent structure of co-occurring, simultaneous events across the universe constitutes the basis for the cosmological principle. Independence of simultaneous event structures entails that the larger structure of the universe is non-isotrope and only stochastically determined.

3. Upon a fundamental level, we may assume the possibility of basic interdependency of event structure and a spatio-temporal relativity of the rate and size of event structure, such that the following paradigm may apply:

    a. The larger the scale of the event structure, the slower the periodic process of the total structure, such that an infinitely large event structure, is infinitely slow.

    b. The smaller the scale of the event structure, the faster the periodic process of the fundamental structure, such that an infinitely small event structure is infinitely fast.

    c. Because an infinitely small event structure may be infinitely fast, it may occur anywhere at the same time and be fundamentally indeterminate.

    d. Because an infinitely large event structure may be infinitely slow, it is universally changeless or without time.

4. The conclusion is therefore that all fundamental periodic process may be simultaneously co-occurring because there is a small enough scale of event structure at which all events become interdependent to one another. In other words there is a level of fundamental physical reality at which all processes become interconnected.

5. All large scale processes are composite event structures that have emergent properties associated with them relative to their scale that is not associated with the smaller event structures that compose them.

6. The gravitational field is the universal space-time matrix in which all event structures occur. This field obeys the paradigm of spime-gravitational dynamics. Gravitation as a form of energy represents a complex set of interrelated phenomena that are related to the laws of mass, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. It is difficult to determine if gravitational fields are intrinsic and embedded in the space-time matrix, and thus are a function of the shape and dynamic flow of these fields, or whether it may also represent a form of radiation, or free energy, that is propagated and transmitted through the spime-gravitational field. I'm inclined at this stage to believe that it is both of these things--gravitation as active energy is shed off by large gravitating bodies and systems, and this form of propagation itself may be complex.

Physical reality appears gravitationally stratified along a continuum, which I will speculate constitutes a continuum of frequency/wave-length of the gravitational entity, or graviton. These levels of gravitation co-occur simultaneously and as a well system in which each system is a subsystem of the one that contains it. It is possible that the relative frequency/wave-length of gravitational phenomena are a function of the relative rate or speed of their propagation such that the stronger the gravitational field (i.e., high frequency/low wave-length) the slower the periodic rate of propagation of the field, and the weaker the gravitational field (i.e., low frequency/long wave-length) the more rapid the rate of propagation, up to and including infinite or instantaneous rates of propagation.

Gravitational fields also take a form of negative energy that is implicit to the structure, conformation and flow dynamics of the space-time matrix or manifolds. This flow influences gravity and the flow of objects through space-time in relation to one another, and forms the basis for the induction of space-time into gravitating bodies or rather into the nuclei of matter that composes these bodies.

This work was undertaken primarily as a deep thought piece for the purpose of examining the structure of knowledge relating to one key topic, that of the basic background field that serves as the contextual substrate for physical reality in the universe. A unified field theory has been the elusive quest of physicists since Einstein framed his general theory of relativity in 1915-16. Perhaps all of physical reality can be summarized by a simple set or paradigm of basic equations, or perhaps this is only the conceit of physicists. My interest in undertaking this work now is merely to bring out a set of thoughts on the topic of natural energy fields and to encapsulate this work in conclusion of related work on natural systems and cosmology that I had previously undertaken. In this earlier work the problem of an integrated energy field and the structure of space-time proved to be central to a coherent model of the universe and of physical reality in a general sense. The question of the possible structure of such fields was salient enough in this other work to demand its own context as a separate work.

Earlier work in physical systems theory and cosmology yielded a number of insights and conclusions that are important to the understanding of field theory. For instance, the universal field appears to be integrated in a continuous sense, such that it permits no fundamental discontinuities from occuring in the physical structure of reality. All events that occur happen within the constraints determined by this field. Furthermore, on a very basic level, this field appears to be fundamentally isomorphic with the things it contains. If we could see things on a small enough scale, we would perhaps find little difference between what we normally construe as "empty" space-time, devoid of matter and energy, and the internal structure of matter and energy itself, except perhaps for some relative isotropic density differentials in whatever it is we would be seeing.

Attempting to understand the background field of the universe leads us to ask some very fundamental questions about our reality--for instance, what is time, and what is space? If change is ubiquitous as a phenomenon in the universe, then why does it occur, and what exactly is it in both a mechanical and an historical sense? How do things change in response and coordination to other things, and yet retain an overall sense of unity of pattern? And what exactly is mass and energy, and how is it these things can be equivalent, and what is the relationship of these things to gravity and gravitation?

Furthermore, we may ask, is there really such a thing as a background field of the universe, or is this merely a vast emptiness, an empty vessel of nothingness that is perhaps full of the things it contains, like matter and energy? Even if we hypothesize the a priori existence of a background field, can we necessarily claim that such a field is intrinsically integrated in some consistent and coherent way, such that it exhibits effects on the things it contains in basic ways? Or is it more appropriate to think of integration as a posteriori to the interrelationship of the things found within the field, properties and characteristics extrinsic to these things, but attributable only to the relationships between things in a Machian model and nothing more?

In attempting to more clearly understand this field, if we can even say there really is such a thing, which I believe to be affirmative, there are some interesting phenomena that need to be accounted for. First, light and other forms of energy appear to pass within the four dimensional continuum of this field without great interference and with few noticeable side-effects. It appears as if light and other various forms of energy are almost perfect in their state-path trajectory, or about as near to perfect as we can get in their transmission properties through this field. Various forms of light and energy can pass through the same specific areas simultaneously from almost every direction without great apparent interaction or significant interference with one another. And yet very old light can arrive to our observational lense from very vast distances and yet reveal very discrete properties and information about the sources that sent it.

I do not in these pages claim to hold forth a unified field theory. I lack the mathematical genius to summarize everything systematically in a single set of field equations. I only seek to offer an alternative heuristic model, mostly upon a descriptive and conceptual level, of what I call the universal field, the background context and substrate of physical reality, upon which, I assert, everything known and knowable in a physical sense is built. This field is the space-time construct in a fundamental sense, though the notion of space-time as I use the compound term comprehends what I believe to be a broader range of possibilities and dimensionalities than is conventionally attributed to it in the classical relativistic sense.

The essential question for me is "What is space-time" in a fundamental and essential sense. It is to inquire into the nature of the void of space-time, that permits electromagnetic radiation to pass through itself almost flawlessly and perfectly, and yet which nevertheless leaves a negative balance sheet in many equations that are based upon notions of conservation and equivalence. For instance, more radiation and mass appear to exist in the universe than can be adequately accounted for by our current received cosmological models. Gravity appears not to obey necessarily the principles we have laid down for this force in our limited understanding of this mysterious but omnipotent energy.

If space-time in its absolute state is really an empty vacuum then it represents a perfect kind of perpetual motion machine. There is thus a sense that it exhibits basic spatial and temporal characteristics, as an infinitely empty framework, that serve to limit all events and existences within its structure. Nevertheless, it appears in a basic sense to be infinite and boundless in and of itself. Metaphysically, it presents us with a kind of contradiction in which something is contained within nothing. Even physically this kind of basic relationship appears to be fundamentally anti-entropic in a manner that contradicts everything we know about physical reality. Space-time appears to set fundamental and inviolable physical constraints upon all expressions of mass and energy, and yet to be itself fundamentally unconstrained, at least by any known dimension or meaning we are aware of.

*****

The universal field can be said to be universally co-occuring at precisely the same instant. It happens everywhere at the same time. I call this the principle of universal instantaneity, or the principle of simultaneity, which I consider to be complementary to the principle of singularity. I will state this principle in the following axiomatic manner:

All co-occuring change events in the universe happen at the same instant, or simultaneously.

Several corollaries are forthcoming from this axiomatic statement. First, for instance, we can say that if all change events are sequentially determined in a diachronic sense, it follows that synchronous events are causally independent of one another. They may indirectly share the same causes, as ultimately all events in the Universe share the same ultimate origins, but in the immediate sense they coexist independently of one another.

Second, we cannot comprehend all synchronous change events at the same time in the total universe. We can only comprehend one change event synchronously, and that is the event that is precisely centered at the origins of our own physical being.

Related to this notion is the third corollary that we cannot comprehend synchronously any event at all, in a truly synchronous manner. All our comprehension is itself diachronous, and hence we can only comprehend phase and period transition pattern through time. Though we can experience instantaneity only in terms of our own physical being, and this is the only concrete manifestation of time that we can have, we can only know time diachronically after the fact of this experience through memory and record. We can make sense of the order of things in the universe through time. Even synchronicity itself can only be understood after the fact of its observation in the diachronic patterning of deterministic interrelationship between different things.

Universal simultaneity then leaves us with a fundamental paradox and relativity of our knowledge that is very evident in the structure of our observational sphere. It is only inferrable from the observation of interrelationship and consistency of pattern between distant or remotely related things or events in reality. It cannot be immediately apprehended as such. Furthermore, our only way of understanding the cosmographical history of change events in the universe, is if we have some standard frame of reference by which to conceptualize and compare such events. In other words, we need to hypothesize a simultaneity principle if we are to understand coherence of structure through time. It is by the relativity of changes, and the differentials of change events that we can infer to be simultaneous and relatively independent of one another, that we can understand the diachronous history of events in the universe.

The principle of simultaneity suggests that the total universe is a mysterious kind of mechanical system that works or functions in consistent and fairly predictable ways. It is likea tremendous clockwork that is perfect in its time keeping. If all significant events that cooccur simultaneously in the universe are not directly, causally tied to one another in an instantaneous sense, we can observe that all events are constrained by the same basic principles in the same way, and these constitute the principles of universal relativity. This leads us to believe as well that all events are indirectly tied to one another, however remotely, and all probably also share the same original history. If we seek out these kinds of fundamental constraints, then I believe we must look to the evidence provided to us in the universal field and in particular the gravitational energy found within it.

An analogy is appropriate at this point. If our contempory world is in excess of six billion human beings, we can conclude probably that my actions in writing this on my word processor at this moment probably has no bearing whatsoever on the immediate circumstances or fate of the rest of the people on earth. In turn their actions appear to have no immediate effect on the outcomes of this sentence. Nevertheless, in a relativistic sense, the fact of my sitting here no, writing this, has fairly direct bearing on the status of my small family, and probably in a more remote sense, bearing on my own status and my family's status in a larger world. Furthermore, just because I am momentarily isolated from the rest of humanity it does not mean that ultimately all of humanity is not constrained in the same basic biological ways and had the same ultimately biological origins in the rise of humankind. I share the same natural history in a fundamental way with the rest of humanity, and this history has a significant bearing on what I am now writing and doing, even in determinining the possibility that I could be doing this in the first place.

In order to really make this digression interesting, I will hypothesize one conclusion from the axioms presented above about universal simultaneity. The fact of mutual coexistence, or of universal simultaneity, of all co-occurring events that are otherwise independent of one another, preconditions and constrains the co-occurrence of all change events in fundamental ways. The fact of universal simultaneity all co-occuring instantaneous events must share the same general relational field at the same time, and hence are fundamentally constrained by this field in the same way. The sun burst here is causally unconnected to a solar flare on the other side of the galaxy happening at the same time. The fact of their cooccurrence determines that these two events cannot suddenly trade places, or occur otherwise than they did in relation to one another, however direct or indirect, and however immediate or remote. If they did not happen in relation to one another, or if they were in fact part of the same event, then they could not be simultaneously cooccuring.

In a general sense, all change events that are instantaneously simultaneous, are part of the same universal change event. This universal change event I would call the basic universal dynamics of the field itself. Simultaneous events co-occur because they are part of and functionally serve to maintain the instantaneous structure of the field as a universal change event. In other words, they are by de facto cooccurrence part and parcel of the structural integrity of the universal field. Without this integrity, we could not predict things that happen, and we could not infer or superimpose cosmological principles to the entire universe based upon what we know and experience in our immediate and contemporaneous worlds.

*****

The universal background field, as a field, is universally integrated. It exhibits a continuity of structure that, according to the principles of universal relativity, cannot be violated in the most fundamental sense. I define the universal field as synonymous to the total space-time construct that encompasses all physically occurring phenomena in reality. I assume that no knowable phenomena can occur beyond the boundary parameters of this construct. I also assume a basic universal relativity of this construct, such that for any two similar systems in any areas of this construct, the mechanical principles affecting both systems will be identical. This is the basis for the presupposition of the principles of universal relativity.

This statement basically contradicts a general relativistic notion of space-time that deals with Lorenz transformations within a framework defined by the constant of the speed of light. Space-time as we understand this is relative in a machian sense to the things that it contains, namely matter and energy as we are capable of normally experiencing these physical phenomena. It is evident that the normal structure of our experience of space-time breaks down on the scale of the very small when we must deal with quantum relativities. It is possible to see as well that general relativity also imposes a large scale observational relativity to our understanding of the universe, such that, according to its principles, we cannot have a normally instantaneous comprehension of the entire universe that is based upon observation. It is possible though, that just as normal dimensionalities and processes of space-time seem to disintegrate at the very small level, they also come to break down on the scale of the very large.

While it is invariably true that all "things" within the universal field are relative to one another in a general sense, it may also well be true that the field, with or without the physical manifestations of the things it contains, is only relative to itself in a larger universal sense, or alternatively in some meta-state framework that we do not yet realize. In other words, the field acts upon the things it contains, and constrains these things in basic relativistic ways, and to some degree, the field and the things within it interact. But it also appears to be the case that the things in the field are not independent of the field and that the field remains relatively independent of these things. In other words, the basis of the principles of universal relativity is that the structure of the universe is not and cannot be Machian in the classical sense of being defined by the things it holds. The structure of the universe as a universal field of space-time underlies and predetermines the phenomenal patterning of the physical processes and entities found embedded in it. If we are to accept a Machian view of the universe, then it must be from the standpoint of an inverted form of Machian relativity, such that the things in the universe are only knowable in relation to the field that they are contained within.

The starting point for understanding the integrity of the universal field on the largest scales is to draw an inference of the very large, but invisible, based upon inferences we can make on normal sized scales within our observational field. We can infer, for instance, that Mars is simultaneously co-occuring with our own Earth, and therefore with ourselves as we are a part of the Earth. We can infer that Alpha Centauri is probably cooccuring simultaneously with our own Sun, even though there is a four year lag in the light information we receive from Centauri, such that if it exploded to smithereens just now, we may not know it until and unless we receive the light signals from it in about four years time. We assume that the likelihood of its spotaneous disintegration is probably very low, and so we are safe to assume its simultaneous coexistence with ourselves. Similarly, we can extend our scale a bit, and assume that the Milky Way galaxy, as a semi-coherent system, is simultaneously co-occuring in all sectors of its observational radius, though it requires light well over a hundred years to reach us from its furthest reaches on the opposite side of the galactic center from our own sun.

If we had a human colony on the other side of the galaxy, then it would require over a century for radio transmission between our selves and this remote colony to be received. We would not know if they were still alive at the intant we speak or whether they went extent fifty years ago even though we would continue receiving their broadcast transmissions for at least another fifty years. We do not expect that significant portions of the Milky Way to suddenly shift or tear apart in an unpredictable manner. In such a manner, with increasing distance, there is increasing deductive inference about universal instantaneity, though we eventually reach beyond the limits of the sphere of our observability, at least as this sphere is defined relativistically by the speed of light.

It is clear that with increasing distances, especially very great depths implied by the limits of our sphere of observation, that there is both a regular and recurrent sense of order. We must be increasingly uncertain as to the exact state or contemporaneous disposition of very remote regions of our universe in relation to ourselves. We infer a probability of a given stability and homogeneity of structure and order in the universe, such that though we cannot directly observe very remote areas beyond the relativistic compass of our observational sphere, we can infer their probable contemporaneous coexistence.

If these structures simultaneously co-occur, and if gravitational radiation is indeed constrained by the speed of light, which appears to be a universal speed limit, then it is likely that at very great distances there is no effective interaction between structures or "unities" of things in the universe. Each natural constellation of heavenly bodies, large or comparatively small, is defined within its own limits of observability and interactivity, beyond which there would be no significant interaction, at least not on levels that we can observe. Indeed, our view of the heaven's in almost any direction reveals just such a picture of the universe.

Universal relativity of the space-time construct suggests two possibilities that on the surface appear congruent with a classical Newtonian and mechanical view of physical reality. The first is that of the notion of absolute space in relation to instantaneous time. If we can conjecture that all events simultaneously cooccur in the universe, then we must hypothesize some kind of instantaneous structural relation that coordinates and holds the universe together in a predictable manner. If we can infer universal instantaneity, then time can only be understood in this sense. This notion implies a form of absolute space that remains constant regardless of the changing and dynamic dispositions of the entities within its dimensions. If light travels at a constant speed, we can infer that the speed and distance it travels to reach a particular distant point from its source, is in fact greater than the actual absolute and "instantaneous" distance between the origin point and the destination point. This difference between the absolute and relative distances between points is based upon a constant proportion derivative of the Pythagorean theorem. Basically, it will be the square root of the square of the speed of light per unit of time measured minus the square of the time duration of light. There would be a specific angle subtended by light that would be the measure of the difference between the relative and the instantaneous. There would be a curve that would open infinitely upon the horizon of instantaneity. We must speculate that upon this curve, there is in the other direction, of the very small, a point of singularity that would be infinitely approached but never reached as well.

In this model, it is clear that universal instantaneity, or what I call the simultaneity principle, is complementary to the principle of singularity. As we approach an infinitely small point, or origin, time is expanded infinitely, jsut as we approach an infinitely large range, time is dilated to nothing. If we think about gravitational systems in reference to such a construct, we must understand that if a black hole can be said to approach singularity upon the continuum, then we must speculate upon some kind of energy field that may approach simultaneity characterizable by timelessness.

If we speculate on a non-zero state model of the universe, that there can be no final singularity in the universe, then we must also speculate that their can be no absolute simultaneity as well, as this would imply a fundamental discontinuity of the structure of space time. Just as we hypothesize in a non-zero state model that there cannot be nothing, we can speculate that one and the same thing cannot simultaneously occur in two different places at the same time--this would be implied by universal simultaneity. Either occurrence would violate the fundamental continuity of structure of the physical universe. Thus we must speculate that zeroth-entities may in fact exist and approach universal instantaneity, but not completely or absolutely.

If this model were even remotely true, then we must speculate that the entropy associated with a black hole would be related to the reduction of its mass to the singularity, and the associated energy fields associated with this occurrence that would unite this entity with the structure of the universe. Energy would transmit almost instantaneously across the universe from a black hole, and do so on a continuous basis. In a sense, a black hole could be seen as a source of feeding the universe with its most essential ingredients, redistributing its constituent energy-entities back into the universal black-body field.

The range of interest to me is that lying below the curve, beyond the limit imposed by the speed of light. Furthermore, I will speculate that the curve constitutes the relative rates at which periodic processes occur in space-time. In a relativistic model of the universe, the limit of light speed itself would be the horizon beyond which no periodic processes can occur. In an instantaneous state model, periodic processes may yet occur beyond this limit, to the horizon of the infinitely fast.

In other words, we can claim that if the Universe is instantaneously co-occuring, then there is an absolute universal space occupied by the physical universe that has absolute dimensionalities and is a priori to our experience or observation of reality.

The second notion that relates the universal relativity of the field to a classical view is related to Newton's idea of "action at a distance" which also implies instantaneity of cause and effect. It is believed that gravitation as a form of energy must travel at the speed of light, which would make impossible in a relativistic universe any action at a distance. But this leaves us in a conundrum of understanding how very large structures in the universe can "hang together" in some coherent and isotropic manner, as for instance, large galaxies or clusters.

Instantaneous action is implicit to the notion of universal cooccurrence, but generally it is regarded that there can be no direct or deterministic relationship between independent events that occur at the same time in very distant places from one another. General relativity in fact demands a sense of relative independence of all co-occuring event structures in the universe. All events are time ordered, such that any event can only be a result of some previous set of events, and not the result or simultaneous reaction to events that happen elsewhere at the same time.

But there is a sense that all simultaneous events are "unified" in some mysterious manner in that their cooccurrence is always somehow coordinated and tuned to happen at the same time, and in such a manner as to preserve the overall integrity and continuity of the field. In other words, the universe appears in a basic sense to be completely synchronized with itself, such that everything instantaneous happens at exactly the same "time" whatever the relative time dilation of the event structure. Furthermore, the net consequence of all separately occuring but simultaneous events always appears to maintain a sense of overall conservation of net value. Whatever kinds of change dynamics might be occurring in any given local area, there appears to be an total overall balance of basic factors or forces that are the causes and effects of those events. This can only be understood from the standpoint that all locally occurring events are contextually grounded within a larger frame of reference, such that there is always a final equation that equal to zero if we subtract the total values of the event from its complementary contextual structure in which it takes place.

In the largest sense, this context that frames all events is the universal field itself. We can say that all events in the universe are local transition events, and all events share the same background field in which they take place and by which they are constrained in the same basic ways. Furthermore, all events that are simultaneous are united within this field, and this field seems to function in ways we do not understand to maintain the overall integrity and to constrain all co-occurring event such that they cannot be disruptive of the underlying structural integrity of the field.

In a sense, an instantaneous universe is in effect a thermodynamically perfect universe. We can understand the difference between the relative and instantaneous structure of simultaneous events in the universe as the difference between the entropic constraints upon thermodynamic systems in the former relativistic case, and what would otherwise be perfect in cause and effect if thermodynamic constraints did not apply. In such a perfect universe, there would be no entropic constraints of thermodynamic systems, and in this sense, entropy is the measure of difference.

Evidence suggests that gravitational systems are in basic ways nonthermodynamic in the conventional sense, though they may be gravitationally dynamic in an equivalent sense. If this is the case, it hints at the possibility that gravitation does not strictly obey the same rules that thermodynamic systems abide by. One of the constraints that gravitational systems may disobey is the constraint of the speed of light. If this were the case, then we can conjecture that we would experience the gravitational effects of very remote and very large events in the universe before we would be capable of observing these events. A massive event would send out a gravitational shock wave that would race in front of the explosive light field that would follow. It would also follow that the gravitational compass and structure of a system would always be larger, over a given time, than its co-occuring electromagnetic sphere associated with that system.

Because we assume that any thermodynamic system will behave in predictable ways compared to any similar system in all areas of the universe, we conjecture that the same rules are applicable universally, albeit perhaps in variable ways. This is the basis for understanding the principles of universal relativity. Hence, the same patterns of entropy would constain the same thermodynamic system in the same way anywhere that system occurred in the universe, and it would also constrain any number of similar such systems in the same ways. Entropy as this naturally occurs in the universe, as a basic kind of constraint affecting all thermodynamic systems, is the basis for understanding the integrity of the universal field.

To the extent that the universal field contains electromagnetic energy, that field can be said to be entropically constraining and constrained. To the extent that this same field can be said to contain gravitationally energy, this same field can be said to be defined by mass-based constraints. It is inertially constraining and constrained. Mass is the relative measure of inertial constraint upon any mechanical system, just as heat is the relative measure of entropic constraint upon the same system. Equivalence, furthermore, tells us that in a fundamental sense these values are conserved in all conversions and transactions. I would claim that both are composed ultimately of the same essential ingredients, or what can be referred to as "energy-entities" that define the limits and constituents of each form, albeit in fundamentally different ways. Another way of saying this is to claim that inertia is the complement of entropy.

Gravity is the realization of a fundamental form of inertial imbalance between any two mass-based systems. Gravitational energy appears to cause gravity. Inertial imbalance is equivalent to a difference of temperature between two systems--the two systems must interact until the balance of inertia and temperature is achieved between them. The acceleration or constant stable motion of a satellite in relation to its gravitational source is equivalent to the decrease of temperature of a high temperature system to achieve equilibrium with the surrounding system. In a sense, these appear to be two diametrically contraposed expectations. Gravitational systems seem to attract to a common origin point, while entropic systems seem to broadcase away from a common origin. In general, thermodyanmic systems seek to decrease the overall temperature of the system, where as gravitational systems naturally seek to increase the overall mass of the system.

The only basic difference that appears to account for these two different systems on a quantum level is the charge dissociation of the electron from its proton complement within the context of the nucleonic structure. This charge dissociation of the electron gives rise to an electromagnetic field from which photonic radiation is emitted. Gravitation as a system appears to be more basic than that of electromagnetic radiation, and this observation is consonant with the fact that force-wise, gravitation is a much weaker force than electromagnetic radiation, even if it is more basic and in a sense, more pervasive. Most particulate entities appear to have mass and gravitational effects, even light itself, however residual, but not all particulate entities appear to have charge and magnetic fields associated with them.

*****

Another way of approaching the problem of the equivalence of entropy and inertia, and of mass and energy, is to ask why is the speed of light that exact speed, and not one percent slower or faster, and not instantaneous. The speed of light as a universal constant that constrains space-time in relativistic ways appears almost to be arbitrarily specific--as if the dial of our speed limit were set to that exact number and no other by the hand of the creator.

I speculate that the speed of light is defined mechanically by the rate of spin of the constituent entities with which electromagnetic radiation is associated, which would be the electron. I speculate that an electron has a constant rate of unitary spin that can only perhaps slow down as the result of some kind of Compton effect, but normally never changes. If this is true, then we can calculate the constant rate of spin of an electron if we know its average size. We can speculate that the mass of a particulate entity is defined by its ratio of size to its rate of spin. A larger, slower spinning particle will have greater mass than a small and fast-spinning particle. Spin appears to offset gravitational effects of mass by means of centrifugal or gyroscopic displacement. Electro-magnetic moment of a particle is created by the relative displacement of a particle about one of its axis of spin. An uncharged particle will be one that is spinning about two sets of axii simultaneously, one parallel to the main axis of its directional orientation, what I call first order spin, and the other perpendicular to this axis. An electron is formed by the axial dissociation of a nucleonic particle about its minor axis, resulting in an electro-magnetic field that overlays a weakened gravitational field.

If electromagnetic force is the binding energy that keeps an electron about a nucleus, then it is possible that gravitational force is the binding energy that holds constituent n-particulates together to create the range of naturally occurring subatomic particles. It is the glue that holds matter together as we understand this, and it acts on all particulate entities that exhibit mass. Gravitational energy would be liberated from a nucleonic particle, much like active radioactive decay, in a similar manner that electromagnetic radiation is emitted from the shell of an orbiting electron when it jumps between levels. We can speculate in this model that a nucleonic particle would be regularly "shifting" its weight or balance in a periodic manner, resulting in the emission of gravitational radiation. If this is correct, then it is to be conjectured that gravitational radiation is very similar to electromagnetic radiation, and will exhibit discrete "spectrographic" patterns in relation to the original particulate that gave rise to the radiation. We can refer in other words to a gravitational spectrum much as we understand the electromagnetic spectrum. I would say that the two forms of energy are almost the identical, except that gravitational radiation is not charge bound. It is expected that the amplitudinal characteristics of gravitation are many orders of magnitude smaller than the equivalent characteristics of light. I speculate furthermore that the periodic processes associated with gravitation would be of much longer wave-length, or of larger frequency, in ratio to its amplitude, compared to that of light.

I would speculate that gravitational radiation might have other characteristics separating it from that of electromagnetic radiation. First, I speculate that whereas light propagates in one direction defined by its magnetic axis, gravitation propagates in two directions simultaneously, and these would be at 45 degree angles from that expected if it were magnetically polarized. Furthermore, I speculate that the propagation of gravitation may be reciprocal--occurring in both directions at the same time, rather than being unidirectional.

We can furthermore speculate that if gravitational radiation propagates in both directions simultaneously, its effect is to unite distant objects together in a common field. The fieldlines of such a system would occur simultaneously throughout the system between the two objects in gravitational relation with one another, unlike that of light. In light, electro-magnetic fieldlines would essentially travel with the wave front at its speed, and thus always experience broadcast transmission away from its source, which would account for entropy in such a system.

Gravitational unification would be seen as a means in which distant objects achieve spin-synchronization of their constituent elements through reciprocation of the gravitational field. The gravitational field is always unified, in a sense, unlike the electro-magnetic field that is always fleeting away. If the gravitational field extends out to infinity in all directions, it does so by incorporating by ever decreasing degrees everything within its compass.

Gravitational radiation as a distinct quantum could potentially occur within a field in two places with equal probability, and it would in essence become half its total field strength.

From this model, whereas an electron emits a strong electromagnetic force, it has almost no gravitational or extremely weak gravitational properties associated with it, thus it interacts only slightly within the gravitational field, or, in other words, in a relatively mass independent sense. On the other hand, heavy atomic nucleons emit very weak electro-magnetic radiation if any at all, but have comparably much stronger gravitational forces associated with its mass concentration. Hence, such nucleonic entities interact much more strongly in a gravitational field.

Oblation of distant massive bodies in a gravitational field can be seen as the compression and squeezing of the body about the center in relation to the distortion of the dynamic gravitational field in which it is situated. We might speculate that the overall shape of an object corresponds to the shape of the gravitational field in which it is embedded in space-time. Gravitational unification in general tends to seek a spheroidal shape, as this is the most unidirectionally stable and uniform. Gravitational planes of accretion develop as the result of the differential of gravitational strenghth of fields in gravitationally unified or mass bound objects.

It is expected that nucleonic entities might demonstrate a form of rotational precession or vibration as a result of shifting or periodic processes in gravitational fields. This nucleonic vibration might affect the magnetic field associated with such charged particles, and may form the basis for a gravitational sensing device.

To summarize, I must speculate on the possibility that gravitation might actually travel faster than the speed of light, and in some forms, approach instantaneity. If gravitation occurs at different levels as a kind of well system, then we can speculate that unlike the speed of light which is constant, the speed of different forms of gravitation may be quite variable and wide ranging.