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 old-fashioned 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 occurring 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 lens 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. Stars in the outer arms of our own Milky Way Galaxy, for instance, appear to be traveling a much higher speeds than those closer to its core, suggesting that more mass may be contained in the Arms than we know or now observe. 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-occurring 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-occurring 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 diachronic, 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 inferable 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 diachronic 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 like a tremendous clockwork that is perfect in its time keeping. If all significant events that coccur 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 contemporary 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 determining 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-occurring 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 co-occurrence 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 co-occurring.

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 co-occurrence 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 spontaneous 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-occurring 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 instant 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 co-occur 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-occurring, 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 co-occurrence, 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-occurring 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 co-occurrence 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 occurring 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 non-thermodynamic 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-occurring 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 thermodynamically 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 entropy-based systems seem to broadcast away from a common origin. In general, thermodynamic 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 field-lines 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 field-lines 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 spherical shape, as this is the most unidirectionally stable and uniform. Gravitational planes of accretion develop as the result of the differential of gravitational strength 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.