Natural Systems Theory

by Hugh M. Lewis

http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/

Chapter Seven

Atomic Systems of Matter

            All matter constitutes basic kinds of physical systems. An atom is a system of a kind, with its own distinct propertiers not explicable in terms of its component electrons and nucleons. Atoms cohere into elements, each and all with unique and distinct properties. Atoms join together to form different and almost an infinite variety of molecules, that make minerals and other substantive structures, each with its own unique physical and chemical properties. The apparent indivisibility of the orginal Greek atom is based on the properties we associate with the atom as a kind of system, rather than upon the actual indestructability of the atom as a fundamental constituent of matter.

            Two important frameworks have established the study of chemical matter. First was the development of what has become known as Atomic Theory by John Dalton, a British school teacher who published his work in the time of the Napoleonic Wars. Second was the the development of the Periodic Table, originally by Dmitri Mendeleev, and later modified and ordered by atomic number rather than atomic weight.

            The development and organization of the periodic table provides us a universal taxonomic system of elements arranged by patterning of their properties. What resulted from this was an amazing periodicity and vertical grouping of elements that was tied to the electron count of their valence shells, and the increasing orbital levels of the atoms themselves. The patterning of the periodic table provides a key to understanding the physical and chemical properties of the elements and of the molecular combinations they form in interaction, properties which are the function of the organization of atoms as systems of matter. This table is considered by the Cosmological principle to be universal, and to provide us the basis for the identification of matter of different types wherever we should travel in the universe.

John Dalton formulated the Atomic Theory which served to explain the observation of chemical reactions and experiments.

1. All matter is composed of Atoms, extremely small, indivisible particles of matter.

2. An element is a distinct type of matter composed of only one kind of atom, with a uniform set of physical properties.

3. A compound is a type of matter composed of atoms from two or more kinds of elements chemically bonded together in fixed and discrete proportions always given in simple whole number ratios.

4. A chemical reaction consists of the rearrangement of the atoms in the reacting substances to yield new combinations in new substances formed by the reaction, with the conservation of the total number and kinds of atoms during the reaction.

Spin-off deductions of Dalton's theory are:

1. The conservation of mass--mass, a fundamental property of all matter, is neither created nor destroyed in chemical reactions, but always conserved.

2. The law of constant composition. Because atoms are conserved by mass, compounds resulting from a chemical reaction have the same elements by the same proportions of mass.

2. The law of multiple proportions, that in any chemical reaction involving two or more elements, the masses of each element are always given in ratios of small whole numbers.

            Dalton's atomic theory gives us a basic model and systems based explanation of the atomic structure of matter and an explanation of the kinds of transformations forthcoming from chemical reactions. Most if not all chemical reactions involve the outermost valence shell, and all physical and chemical properties associated with atomic matter, aside from properties of mass, is a consequence of the configuration, shape and electron count in the valence shell of the resulting atomic or molecular structures. These properties, in other words, appear to be emergent from the external shell of the electron configuration constituting the atom or molecular structure.

Water, for instance, a common and very stable compound on earth, has distinct and unique physical properties, of phase transition temperatures, etc., that cannot be accounted for in terms of the properties of the elements, hydrogen or oxygen, that compose it, each of which is a gas at normal room temperature, unlike water, and each of which is highly flammable and reactive, again, unlike water. Obviously, the composite structure of the water molecule, of two hydrogen joined to a central oxygen atom, yields a surface configuration and set of properties far different than those of the component parts.

And if we add one more oxygen atom, to make hydrogen peroxide, we create a substance wholly unlike water, though liquid, one that is highly flammable and toxic, and capable of being used as rocket fuel.

It is amazing, and something not completely understood, how most properties we associate with different kinds of matter in our everyday world are mainly the consequence of the electronic configuration of the outermost shells of the atoms or the combined molecular structures, which upon a fundamental level, follow quantum principles of uncertainty and fermi-dirac statistics.

Furthermore the classical Newtonian theories of motion and gravitation are largely theories of matter, their mechanical and gravitational dynamics, as macroscopic systems. As such, we can consider Newton's three laws of motion and laws of universal gravition as extension of a theory of atomic matter as a system.

The properties of matter, of any and all matter that we know of, as a system, extend to our understanding of the fundamental forces of nature and of the gravitational organization of the universe as well. All of the four fundamental forces are largely a function of the organization and interaction of atoms.

Gravitational radiation and effects occur only as a consequence of the accumulation and concentration of matter. All systems of mass that demonstrate Newtonian properties of kinetic energy and gravitational attraction are in fact systems of matter of one kind or phase or another. We might possibly refer to the substance of space-time as a "negative mass" system, but this remains hypothetical. Most subatomic particles have the property of mass, but mass and its effects is mainly understood in terms of the combined mass of the atom, as a consequence of matter, which becomes measureable and countable in larger quantities. It is in terms of the atom as a system of subatomic particles, which produces mass effects, and which, somewhat mysterious, produces gravitational and mechanical effects when combined additively. Somehow atoms interact with one another to combine their mass effects, and their gravitational power, such that the macro-state of a gravitational system becomes the average of the distribution of the atomic micro-states of a system of matter. We do not clearly comprehend how this occurs.

Electromagnetic radiation is mainly the consequence of the electron in its orbiting motions around the nucleus, though this form of energy can also be radiated in prodigious quantities by the manipulation of the mass of the nucleus itself.

The atom, and the forms of matter it makes, is not completely understand as a natural, physical system in the integration and organization of reality.

Physical Reality and the Protonic Universe

There may be anti-matter galaxies floating around out there somewhere. We should not assume there isn't absolutely until we perchance run into one. But the likelihood seems greater that the universe that we can see and infer seems mostly built in one way, and not the other. This is a universe that has been built on the stability of the proton. The proton appears to be an extremely stable fundamental system of physical reality. It is not only super stable in the structure of the long run, but super-abundant in the structure of the large. Received Big Bang models hypothesize that most protons were created in the first few seconds of the somewhat "immaculate" birth of the universe. This Catholic, Gamowian vision of our universe has never been seriously contested except by means of Fred Hoyle, Gold and Bondi's idea of a "Steady State System." Perhaps as a boy I liked Hoyle's model better than Gamow's single creation event. Never good in life to take sides with the losing party in any debate. I must side with a kind of "Steady State System" because, in the main, it is precisely in keeping with a framework of universal systems theory, even if the exact mechanisms or nature of this systems state is not yet well described and the original cosmological model developed by Hoyle et. al. was not quite correct.

The basic dilemma of any cosmological argument about origins or total scale of universes is the question "one came before" whatever it is we say came first, and what created that. Alternatively in terms of scale, whatever boundary or limit we may imagine for the universe, we must ask, what is beyond that and how is it contained? To say there was something that just was, that always was, that was not somehow previously created, that was everything, is, once again, scientifically unproveable hence untenable as scientific explanation.

The exact mechanism of the original production of the proton, and especially of so many protons, has not yet been sufficiently explained or empirically validated one way or another. The point is, whatever our received or agreed upon models of Cosmology may or may not be, we just don't know for certain and do not have enough evidence to say one way or another. Reason can therefore spin on a proverbial pin-head.

The only obvious instability of a proton seems to be its nucleonic nature in the context of the atomic nucleus--its apparent ability to receive an electron and shift states back and forth from a neutron to a proton. I'm not sure that the exact configuration of a nucleus of an atom can ever be completely determined at any particular moment, but that this kind of nucleonic transvestism is not going on continuously as protons and neutrons switch back and forth on a regular basis. But this appears to be a relatively minor point to make. 

A point that might be made is that protons appear hardly ever by themselves without an electron or set of electrons potentially hanging about. I think even in a neutron star that has shed its electrons and electronic orbitals to comprise an extremely dense for of nucleonic matter, we would find the absorption of electrons and the radiation of alpha particles and positrons as a consequence. We can speculate that a black hole may be composed of a form of super-matter that is relatively devoid of any electrons, and that may be just a large mass of protons all bound together, perhaps interlaced with neutrons. I would be inclined to call this "super-matter" in the sense that it would be the equivalent of a single mass of rather homogeneous element. Perhaps we can find the occurrence of the "magic islands" of stability that are projected from an extension of the periodic table to higher atomic numbers. With the end matter of an expired Sun like ours we may end up with a large iron type of core, with some radiation and a lot of molten heat. With a larger mass like those leading to black hole development, we might expect possibly a stable configuration of elementary mass, albeit higher on the periodic table. This is of course largely conjectural as no one really knows what it may be like inside a black hole and its possible no one will ever find out and live to tell about it.

It is of course the other end that I'm interested in understanding more--rather not the end but the beginning of basic things in the Universe like protons. My argument goes as follows:

If something, even protons, exist in the universe, they have to have been somehow created, not by the hand of some nameless God, but by the concatenation of event structures that, in systems parlance, can be described as self-organizational. The mechanisms of this process of creation of protons must be therefore available to descriptive scientific explanation.

Protons, like all other "things" in reality, are "systems" and all systems in principle are susceptible to systems explanation. One of the basic principles of all finite systems, and a proton is definitely about as finite a system as we can find, relativistic considerations notwithstanding, is that all finite systems represent temporary event structures--they have a beginning, a life-trajectory, and an end. If something can be made (systems-wise) then it can be destroyed, and if it was made, it will be eventually destroyed. 

Our alternative here is logically untenable without making a final (unscientific) leap of faith. We can assume that protons are indestructible and last forever. We can logically conclude therefore that: 1.) they were never created, but always existed, because they had no beginning; 2) they will always exist, and will not change in basic form--they exhibit no pattern variation whatsoever. If we make these assumptions, we must conclude by deductive reasoning that the universe is infinite and eternal. We must also assume that the universe was created by some source of divine predetermination that was ultimately supernatural and that cannot be finally explained within a systems framework.

We must conclude therefore that the more reasonable scientific argument is that there is some pathway for the production of protons, a pathway that at least one point in the history of our universe was common and widespread, and that there is also at least one pathway for the destruction of protons, and for their demise.

We can also conclude a corollary of our argument that protons probably do demonstrate considerable degrees of pattern variability--we may eventually discover different "species" of proton or at least a broader range of variation of proton pattern and structure than a stereotypical model of the "indestructible homogene" leads us to believe.

We may also speculate that in the course of the history of the Universe there may have been more than one pathway of the production of new protons and more than one possible avenue for their destruction as systems. Not to be a self-promoter, I must plug my own model of the Dynamic State Universe, which is not a second-generation derivative of a Steady-State model, not exactly at least. On the basis of this kind of model, I hypothesize common secondary pathways by which new protons are created and destroyed, even under our feet, so to speak, though we do not yet see the flat world in a round way. But the hypothesis of common secondary pathways does not answer the basic question of a primary and original pathway, especially on a super-common and super-abundant scale.

A central question to try to answer in the resolution of this kind of problem is of course whether so many protons were made one time, all at once, in the beginning, so to speak, or if the universal abundance of protons points to a common pathway that still exists (i.e., protons are still being produced.) Solid answers to this question has a tremendous impact in the kind of cosmology we end up with.

I've myself been working on various possible models on how protons may be produce in large quantities, even vast quantities without any prior mechanisms "systems" being involved. We must speculate some kind of pre-existing "system" that would have lacked protons in the beginning, and that would therefore have lacked any matter as we know it. I would even argue that such a system lacked as well the differentiated forms of energy that we know it now by, though it had an basic quintessential and undifferentiated form of energy that was part of its substrate. It is beyond the scope to fully elaborate this hypothetical model or its many implications. Rather, I see possibilities like large-scale "space-time" tidal waves that surge across the vastnesses of the universe on a regular basis, even if undetected by our earthbound standards of measure, so far. The causes of these large scale event structures are hard to ascertain, though one kind of even that might precipitate it would be the explosion of a black hole as a final end event, or alternatively the collapse of two black holes into one another. Any number of possible scenarios might be imagined, and this is imagination at its scientific worst, but ultimately we need to explain things without resorting to such end-game players like black-holes etc., as we would need to then explain their origin before hand.

So about all I'm left with is a strange kind of "butterfly" effect. A rift, a ripple, a pimple, on the fabric of space-time, a cosmic hiccup, that perchance, for some unknown set of reasons, amplifies and propagates chaotically until we have this rolling, curling wave of space-time propagating itself across the vast emptinesses of the empty original universe--in its wake, or where such waves crash together, primitive protons get made, with all the consequences thereafter.

There is one main set of observations that are available to us, not clearly, but generally, that may help in this matter. Hydrogen gas in basic form appears abundant and pervasive throughout the universe, forming what are tremendous "clouds" or "nebulae" that appear to be relatively amorphous. The amorphous nature of these clouds suggests that they may not be quite as well gravitationally unified as are perhaps most clear galaxies that we can see. If my earlier argument is correct, that protons never seem to venture far without the accompaniment of electrons, then it is possible to see these regions of concentration of hydrogen gas as possible zones where new protons have been formed, or arising from such zones. 

The lack of overall gravitational unification of such regions--large collections, suggests a couple of other possibilities as well. First, hydrogen gas by its nature resists gravitational unification until certain relatively high densities can be achieved, and in those areas of relatively high concentration, spontaneous formation of new stars can be expected. This is in fact observable. Second, large hydrogen gas envelopes appear relatively amorphous and gravitationally un-unified. We must seriously question the occurrence of things like red-shift in these contexts that lack clear gravitational unification as systems. Such areas cannot be necessarily considered to be racing from some ancient origin in a uniform and self-consistent way, and if they demonstrate any kind of Doppler effect in terms of the red-shifting of the light received from these zones, it might be better explained in some other way that the presumed recession of galaxies.

If we examine the larger scale distribution of these tremendous "cloud formations" of hydrogen, we discover that they appear to be arranged in the universe like the matrix of huge three dimensional cells, irregular, but with a consistency of form and unevenness of distribution that suggests that the larger structure of the universe may be something we have hardly yet guessed at.

Certainly, any extant galaxy must have arisen from such gas clouds in the first place, just as the creation of a sun can only be explained in terms of its formation by the condensation of hydrogen at specific and sufficient concentrations. If we find well formed galaxies at a distance of 13 billion light-years from earth, surely these galaxies must have already been well formed much earlier than 13 billion years ago--adding considerable time depth to the current structure of the universe. And the mechanisms accounting for these early galaxies can be presumed, by an extension of the Cosmological Principle, to be similar to the mechanisms probably still occurring now in the Universe. 

Surely, we must speculate that the Universe as a whole has aged, and evolved in its development over the structure of the long run and the large. If our line of thinking is even remotely accurate, from a systems standpoint, then we can speculate that there was probably a very early period when the Universe was far less dense in concentration of hydrogen than now, and that ultimately, there was a very early time that it was effectively devoid of any hydrogen or higher states of matter. If we had a super-huge and super-precise telescope, perhaps we could look back in time deep enough to find such a relative absence of galaxies--surely we couldn't see individual stars that deep in space-time. 

If my thinking is correct, we would at that limit begin to see as well a relative absence of light, as light as we know it is in the main produced by stars, and no stars would be found. Perhaps then we might explain Obler's Paradox in this way--the dark of the night between the stars is the silent and empty background from which the stars themselves were molded, long, long ago, and, apparently, very far away.

If this kind of model has any hope of success, we must ultimately be able to account for the original formation of hydrogen (i.e. protons) in otherwise empty space-time, in terms of mechanisms that would be available in such a context. Again, I go back down to basics. Hydrogen gas in the observable sphere of our universe does not appear completely uniform or random in its distribution, though this distribution is relatively random over all. This patterning of distribution belies a meta-systems "structure" that hints at the operation of some "subsurface" system that we might not directly see and have not yet sufficiently accounted for in our explanations. I suspect this has something to do with the inherent dynamics and turbulence of space-time itself, even hypothetically in "empty" space without the influence of objects of matter embedded in that space, as we commonly observe now. It's of course not what we are seeing, but what we do not see, and possibly cannot see, that may be critical.

Just as we have assumed that protons may be relatively uniform and in a sense homogenous in structure, we have I think also implicitly presumed that empty space-time must also be somewhat homogeneous and uniform in structure, even if apparently convoluted. Space-time is not static, but flows like water in a vessel. It appears to flow in a non-isotrope way when there are no gravitational objects to focus its direction or rate of movement. It is possible in this vast sea of the universe therefore, at this basic level, that the otherwise random flow of the tides and currents of space-time coalesce into things like space-time hurricanes or "fronts." 

Protonic Systems

All of nature is built upon a fundamental sense of balance. The proton is perhaps the quintessential example of this almost perfect sense of balance. Without simple, perfect symmetries occurring on the smallest of scales, the entire universe would be in disorder. Thus, the smallest balances in nature have the grandest of cosmological significance. This sense of symmetry of the small leads to order in the largest things that exist in the world. It is this sense of balance that determines that for every action, we can expect an opposite but equal reaction, and that, for all our energy equations, we can always expect a net difference of exactly zero.

I define a protonic system as a system of matter as we conventionally understand this. We may say that a proton is a fundamental constituent of all matter. Essentially, therefore, a description of protonic systems is a description of the dynamics of matter as we conventionally understand this in the form of atoms. There are hypothesized forms of matter that occur under exceptional circumstances that do not fit the conventional form of the atomic based molecule. These forms of "super matter" are expected to occur principally in neutron stars and in black holes. The problem of "protonic systems" is an important question in physical systems theory, because protons appear to be an exceptionally stable and permanent physical entity, showing little to know degeneration or decay over very long periods of time. The entire observable universe appears to have built itself upon the stability of the proton. There appears at the same time to be a critical absence of anti-matter in the form of an anti-proton. Though this conclusion may be mistaken in the structure of the large, it seems a reasonable conclusion based on what we can observe. With the framework of a model of the dynamic-state universe, explaining the possible origin and creation of a proton from basic forms of energy provides evidence and a basis for explaining the origins of the Universe itself as we know it to be. This is a basic challenge to any theory of the origins of the universe.

We still know very little about proton production. They must have been produced, in almost unlimited quantities. Just how this has happened remains a grand mystery. Based upon my theory of spime gravitational dynamics, it is predicted that new protons are continuously being created within the core of stars, and these protons are regularly ejected from star systems as solar wind. Ejected protons eventually collect to form large fields of hydrogen gas in deep space, coalescing over time to fairly large formations that may gain some minimal form of gravitational stability as a system.

This explains one possible avenue of proton production, but this pathway is a secondary pathway that, at the hypothetical beginnings of the primordial universe, did not exist. If stars do produce hydrogen nuclei in prodigious and regular amounts, and broadcast these over a broad range, these stars did not exist as a pre-established mechanism of proton production in the earliest universe. Some other avenue for the production of hydrogen gas in truly prodigious quantities must therefore be explained.

I'm of the opinion that protons are still being produced in the universe outside of stars, and that the mechanisms that are occurring today, largely invisible and mostly unnoticed, were probably the same mechanisms that occurred in the primordial "beginning" that led to the formation of the first star systems. In this, I adopt another model than the big bang one--I cannot get around the idea of the hypothesis of a pre-established, concentrated system that suddenly just blew up on itself. There is no explanation of where this system came into being in the first place, or why or how it happened. Such an explanation does not seem necessarily parsimonious with the observation of structures in the universe today, and it does not seem necessarily to account for all things about these current structures in the most logical of ways.

Based upon my own hypothesis of the dynamic state universe, the original universe would have been a relatively empty and uniformly distributed system. It would have been characterized by a fast "flat field" of space-time more or less uniformly distributed and relatively empty of either derivative forms of energy (light or gravitation) or of forms of matter. Spime would have flowed  dynamically through this system, albeit in an almost completely non-isotrope and random distribution of pattern. In the process of this flow, relatively non-random distributions of spime flow may have occurred, analogous somewhat to how we might observe the formation of large storm systems out on the open ocean in certain times of the year. We may conjecture that if such "spime" exists, it may come in several varieties, and these may form non-isotrope distributions which may include, on occasion, the development of very large cells of one type of "spime." Any such model of course would be highly conjectural and hypothetical, and we might at this point in our knowledge imagine any number of alternative mechanisms.  Such systems may in fact, if they occur, be very large and very long lasting by our relative standards, and they may in areas where there is a kind of confluence and forced concentration of spime, give rise to the generation of protons or at least the component conditions leading to proton formation.

As I've alluded to already, this kind of process may continue unseen today in the vast stretches of deep space. We may perchance discover regions in which new proton formation is very active and of relatively large scale. Much that is taken to be "dark matter" in space may in fact be such fields of pristine protonic nuclei, swept out over vast areas of space.

I am of the perhaps simplistic opinion that once we have protonic nuclei, we have the basic starter components for matter. Electrons appear to be charge complementary to protons, and together these appear to make neutrons. All three appear to arise more or less in the same cup of primordial soup.

Fundamental laws of particle symmetry tell us that for every proton produced, we must conjecture the production of an anti-proton. This is the case if we assume a proton is in fact a fundamental particle and not some composite of other fundamental particles. A proton as a composite may not require or conform to a law of symmetry, though we suspect that it may anyway. It is assumed that if no anti-protons are found to occur today, then it is likely that, for whatever mysterious reason, unlike protons they may be very unstable and very short duration. Their dissolution or possible annihilation may result though in the production of light energy and possible of electron-positron pairs. We know positrons do not appear very stable but rapidly annihilate or possibly become absorbed by nuclei. On the other hand, electrons do appear stable and come into complex association with protons. They carry a charge almost directly symmetrical to the protons charge. It appears furthermore that half the time electrons associate somewhat casually and promiscuously with protons, and the other half of the time they consociate more closely with protons to form charge neutral "neutrons." The fact that when neutrons decay they emit electrons as radiation suggests that electrons are closely associated with nucleonic pairing and nuclear formations.

The dynamic state model of the originally "empty" and uniform-field universe would it seems have been a place relatively devoid of derivative forms of energy. It would have been an "invisible" universe as there would have been little or no light produced within it. This seems strange to think about. What would a universe without light be like? Most that we know or think about the cosmos is a consequence of our observation with various wavelengths of light.

Of course, this model, as is, appears to defy the tenets of sound scientific explanation, for how can something be produced from "nothing." If the first law of thermodynamics, the conservation of energy, is that energy (namely light energy) cannot be created or destroyed, then how can we hypothesize an empty universe and the creation of new energy? Even a big bang cosmic egg would appear preferable and more tenable as an argument in scientific reasoning. But in all of nature we observe the self-organization of systems, of complex and determined states arising spontaneously from simple and undetermined backgrounds. Living systems arose in just this way, and it is indeed a fundamental part of the definition of general systems that they arise stochastically through unpre-determined self-organization.

To assert therefore that light did not exist in the earliest phases of the universe does not necessarily mean that the original state of the universe was devoid of energy altogether. Indeed if we were to logically extend the first law of thermodynamics, we would have to conclude that the net total amount of energy at the first stage of the universe, to now, and even until the final stage, will be equal. Energy existed in the first universe in the same amounts it exists in now, but in different forms and distributions.

If we are to cosmologically extend the first law of thermodynamics, if energy cannot be made or destroyed, but only transformed and exchanged, then we must conclude that the universe is without beginning and will be without end, in its most basic forms, and that, as a consequence, it is also without finite, extrinsic limit. The total amount of energy in the universe is therefore unlimited, infinite. It is not just super-large or super abundant--it is endless.

I conclude as well that the basic forms of energy we deal with, the four forms of energy that we are familiar with, are in fact derivative or "transformed" varieties of energy that occur all in relation to the formation of protonic systems, and that, they are derivatives of a more fundamental form of energy, that I call "quintessential synergy" or "quintessence" or "synergy" for short. Quintessential synergy is a fundamental form of energy that is found in spime, and spime is the fundamental substance of all of space-time. I would in essence say that synergy normally constitutes spime, or spime is made up of synergy as "quintessence." They may possibly be one and the same thing, or they may just be part of a system much more complicated than we know.

Whatever the case may really be, hypothetically speaking, synergy appears normally "locked up" in spime, as a form of latent or hidden or "potential energy." This energy may underlie spime-gravitational dynamics, or what can be called the dynamic flow of spime through open Space.  This flow does not seem to be the flow of individual particles, so much as the dynamic flow of an entire field, and we may in fact be witnessing a kind of quantum dynamic flow that in some respects carries particulate properties and in other respects has field-like properties.

If I pick up a pencil or an object off this desk, and drop it to the floor, the automatic fall of the pencil or object earth word, and its downward acceleration, I would interpret as direct evidence of the dynamic flow of spime into the earth. The pencil is simply caught in the current of spime as it is flowing into the earth, and it is carried downward. Its own mass characteristics and intrinsic inertia entails its gradual acceleration as it falls until it achieves terminal velocity. Indeed, if we can see it thusly, like Zeno's proverbial arrow, we observe the flow of spime all around us and in a sense its flow is fundamentally definitional in our lives. We cannot escape it no matter how hard we may try. In fact we can escape it, at least relativistically and locally, if we jettison ourselves at escape velocity into outer space and free of the gravitational straight-jacket of the earth.

The time it takes a free-falling pencil to reach terminal velocity, which is the same amount of time it would require any object to reach terminal velocity within the same uniform gravitational field, can be said to be the time it takes that object, somewhat akin to Zeno's arrow, once again, to achieve instantaneous equilibrium with the dynamic flow of the space-time manifold in which it is embedded. It is the time required to change its speed and other associated characteristics from a relative state of rest, or what we might call "suspended animation" to that of free-fall in equilibrium with the space-time manifold. We might refer to the "acceleration" of the pencil to a "resetting" of its clocks to become synchronous with space time manifold that is flowing around it. If a person is released from a safe position into a fast flowing stream of water, it takes a moment for that individual to be accelerated to the same rate of flow of the water. Eventually that person will move more or less at the same rate as the water is flowing. Any object released into a stream of water, would eventually flow more or less at this same rate of speed. The flow of water itself is ultimately tied to the flow of the space-time manifold that contains the water--it is in other words defined gravitationally and its rate of flow on a declined plane is a function of the dynamics of gravity working on a fluid substance on that plane.

According to this theory, spime flows dynamically through Space. It has always flowed in Space, and will always flow in space. Where this hypothetical spime originally came from, in unlimited quantities, is anyone's guess, though from a systems standpoint one would have to assert that it came from more basic and more fundamental forms of energy that compose spime/synergy. Creation of the Universe thus becomes what can be called systematic explanation by fundamental infinitesimals--each level of physical reality composed of more basic level that synergistically creates the properties and dynamics associated with a level, in turn created by another level. When we are dealing with spime we are dealing with a level of phenomena that remains essentially below that of our capacities for direct observation, and we are dealing with by inference with derivative and indirect phenomena that are a consequence of spime-dynamics. Though I have conjectured on the possible constituent structure of spime, on nth-particulates and zeroth infinitesimals, I do not know if we would ever be able to conclusive hoist such arguments to a level that we can muster compelling evidence for or against such constructions.

When we hypothesize that what we normally and conventionally see as "empty" albeit relativistically structured space-time may be anything but empty and vacuous, we open a whole Pandora's box upon a universal field of explanatory constructs and possibilities. Dynamic energy, in its fundamental form, may everywhere be a local and instantaneous construct, drawn in a quantum instant from the immediate space-time context. The rate of propagation of light, for instance, through the medium of spime may essentially be a rate at which light, in directional form, may be instantaneously drawn upon this medium.

The gravitational lensing effect of strong fields on the trajectory and field patterns of light suggest as well the dynamic nature of space-time. Light appears everywhere to be flowing through the medium of spime, and not just through an empty vacuum of Space. What we take to be light may in part be constituted in an instantaneous manner from this medium of spime, albeit in a quantum dynamic way. These would be part of the field effects of light that determine that a photon will not behave exactly like a free particle of energy. The fact that it appears capable of flying in a directive, nearly perfect state-path trajectory, virtually forever, suggests that its motions are gravitationally dynamic upon a fundamental level in a manner similar to other objects of mass. Its schizoidal characteristics would thus be attributable to its relative size and its relative susceptibility to instantaneous quantum-spime dynamics and the effects of these dynamics.

I am tempted to argue that what we experience in the red shifting of old light might be what is equivalent to the long-term loss of momentum of light due primarily to its field effects over the structure of the long run. All old light would be expected to exhibit these red-shift effects, if it in fact occurs, at some constant rate. It would be equivalent to a long-distance breaking effect, or loss of the energy of inertia, in what would otherwise be a near perfect and perfectly efficient medium for the transference of light energy. It would be attributable primarily to its continuous field interaction with the spime manifold, and would be a consequence of the size and quantum mechanics of light in this instantaneous spime manifold. We could, in other words, launch a pencil in free-flight toward some presumably empty point of space, at or near the speed of light, and in 16 or so billion years retrieve the same pencil without any appreciable loss of energy or change in state of the pencil beyond some radioactive decay. Light, on the other hand, would feasibly exhibit quantum field-effects as a result of its age and its extended state-path trajectory.

What we see and preconceive to be "empty" Space then in fact is a medium to which various dynamic field effects can be attributed, and which can be hypothesized to contain a fundamental form of "synergy" or quintessential energy from which the four known forms are derivative. As a form of hidden energy it is a source of an infinite amount of energy that may be in its basic state "potential energy" that is otherwise unrealized except in terms of relative spime-gravitational dynamics. Any energy event, an explosion of whatever size or scale, for instance, or the traverse of a photon, is an occasion for the continuous, instantaneous "realization" of this potential energy from one "fundamental frame" to the next--the frame being something between a sense of space and time.  I would, in honor of the philosopher who first though about it, call such instantaneous realization of any energy event, Zeno-tropic or instantaneously Zeno-trope. The various effects this might give rise to, for instance the four forms of energy we understand, I would call Zeno-tropic effects of fundamental energy systems. I would claim that Zeno-tropic field effects are characteristic of quantum field-dynamics at a certain fundamental scale of size, and involve fundamental paradoxes of the identity of event structures as either particulate and "fixed" in space-time or as field or distributed and as "uncertain" of space-time. A function of such Zeno-tropic effects is what appears on one hand to be near perfect and instantaneous efficiencies of transformation of energy, without thermodynamic side-effects of heat loss, and on the other hand, what can be called quantum-dynamic field effects that are equivalent upon a fundamental level with thermodynamic systems.

Gravitational energy appears possibly to be even more quantum-dynamic in effect than that of light, and I have conjectured that gravitational energy may in principle propagate at a rate much faster than the speed of light, or possibly even at an instantaneous rate of speed. We must distinguish what we understand to be the field effects of gravitational energy,  as a form of free radiant energy, from the gravitational dynamics and effects of spime dynamics within gravitational fields. In other words, spime fields appear to interact with gravitational energy in critical ways that light does not significantly seem to do. On the other hand, if there is such a thing as free gravitational radiation, constituted by a graviton, it is likely that this form of free gravitational energy also carries its own quantum-dynamic field effects in a manner relatively independent of spime-gravitational field effects. These relationships and their outcomes appear to be complex overall.

Mass is to gravitation what temperature is to light energy. As temperature is the relative measure of heat in a system, we may conclude that mass is the relative measure of gravity, or what I would call gravitational unification, of a system. Absolute zero on the Kelvin scale must be approximated, if my analogy is more of a homology than a real analogy, to something we can refer to as Absolute Zero Mass. This may be a state infinitesimally approximated and yet never perfectly achieved, except perhaps in a momentary quantum manner.

The other property of physical reality closely associated with mass is motion, and I would claim that motion is to an object of "matter" or a particulate, gravitationally unified entity analogous to what mass is to that object. I would speculate that all things in the universe are in a state of what I would call intrinsic, spontaneous motion, even if this motion is directly unobservable and only indirectly observable by the parallax with other objects that are not in gravitational unification. Motion is relative and relatively complex.

We attribute motion to a photon of light, and this motion is similar to the motion we attribute to an asteroid, for instance. To the extent that the photon of light has motion in this sense of an object of mass, it has mass, and these mass effects are associated with the energy of inertia found in light. The fact that the propagation of light can be slowed to less than light-speed through other mediums than empty space-time, suggest a set of possible things--that the propagation of light is at least in part a form of motion, and that it is not intrinsically an absolute constant, though it may effectively be treated thus in most formulas and equations and that light-speed is the peak rate of propagation achievable through the medium of spime. We may speculate as well that if spime is variable in density or structure in its dynamic flow through the universe, then light speed will vary accordingly in an instantaneous manner. Gravitational lensing may be a demonstration of this--the bending of light and its curvature a consequence of a change in speed through space-time. We might speculate further that the potential loss of the energy of inertia of light through spime over the long-term does not result in the variation of its speed, or a "lensing effect" overall, but what might be called a "Einstein shift" of light, not due to the extreme power of a local large gravitating body or field, but to the intrinsic gravitational effects of otherwise and apparently empty Space itself.

The suggestion has been made that all forms of energy we regularly identify are all tied in one way or another to the instantaneous demonstration of protonic systems of matter in the universe, which appear to be the only stable system of matter we yet know of. I would argue that light, strong and weak energy and gravitational energy all arise as a direct consequence and in relation to the configuration of a protonic atom, and all involve the transformation of "quintessential synergy" in relation to local field effects produced by subatomic structures in association with the atom. All have field effects which are essentially the unique identifying properties we associate with these forms of energy. My argument, from a systems point of view, is that what we see as energy are in fact relatively complex energy systems, with several different side and field effects, that arise out of the interaction of various components of atoms. We may in time come to identify other forms of energy upon a relatively discrete level.

Another way of looking at this problem is to consider an atom to be a complex kind of quantum machine. In its outer layers, there is the electron or set of electrons, which seem to peal back like layers of an onion. At the core of the structure is the atomic nucleus, which seems to be a complex structure with its own magnetic spin and tightly strung together somewhat like string of pearls wrapped or coiled upon itself, albeit quantum pearls that seem to form their own energy layers.

This machine is overall very stable in configuration, even if its various components are in constant states of change and fluctuation. With discrete subsystems of this machine are associated the specific quantum energy fields that give rise to the four known forms of energy we are familiar with and know about, and possibly even more.

If we look at the other end of the field and propagation effects of various forms of energy, we understand these effects in terms of their consequences upon atoms and their sub-components remotely connected to the source of origination of the energy--for instance, we experience light effects at a distance variously as heat or electronic stimulation of our "observational detecting" mechanism--invariably for us we translate this into some form of visual image with interpret in the form of light modulation. Remote gravitational effects (action at a distance) may be said to be generally identified as changes in mass and motion of an object. I would speculate that the principal mechanism involved would be the action of gravitational energy upon the nuclear structure of an atom, resulting in an increase in relative mass of the nucleus. Strong forces are not known to occur or propagate far beyond the nucleus of an atom, but I conjecture that there may in fact be long distance field effects of the propagation of strong energies that we do not know take into account, and these effects would be felt significantly in terms of the state changes of the nuclei of remote atoms. Similarly for weak effects that are associated with leptons. The role of leptons in atomic nuclei are not well understood, but they appear to be a regular by product of radioactive decay and fusion/fission reactions in the sun.

One aspect of physical systems in the large and in the small seem to be a kind of "reticular" or "reticulating" structure. We may apply a model of a reticulating structure both to nuclei and to perhaps the largest observational structures we find in the universe. Reticulating structure is common in natural systems, and appears to arise out of the derivative complexity and underdetermined chaos of variability in the phenomenal patterning of systems structures. A minimal definition of a reticular or reticulating structure of course is that of a network or rather a net-work structure that is criss-crossed by multiple intersecting lines. I would think that space-time manifolds typically have upon a fundamental level reticulating structures, and I can picture a strange kind of reticular structure in the composition of a nucleus of an single atom. We can picture small momentary "bridges" forming across subatomic components, and even possibly between different nuclei, over which bridges there is an exchange of energy, perhaps.

Referring to the possible reticulated nature of the structure of fundamental reality, at least upon a certain level, brings us to speculation about quantum field effects and the nature of "quantized" forms of physical event structures. String theory has been invoked as "theory of everything" physical at least, and has achieved some success in accounting for instance in the quark structure of nuclei. It is my thought that "strings" are in fact instantaneous quantum event structures that may occur in variable and momentary form--they do not last, and are not expected to last very long. Their duration, by our standards, would be next to no time at all, even if relative to a fundamental level it could seem like several life-times at least. Because they are "quantum dynamic" they momentarily defy what we might call the normal strictures of space-time on objects of mass--they essentially may occur at more than one point at one time, travel in multiple directions simultaneously, occur instantaneously in multiple locations, and permit transaction to occur, in an immediate sense, between "bridged" points. Because they are inherently dynamic, they never stay in the same structural formation for more than a brief, cosmological instant, which may in fact be a constant rate of infinitesimally small lapse of real time. We may call these reticulating field formations "energy event structures" that form in the structural dynamics of normal space-time upon a fundamental level of articulation.

The thing about reticulating structures to me is that, in naturally self-organizing systems it tends to be chaotic on one hand, and to tend to run towards ever increasing states of complexity. On one hand they exhibit what might be referred to as a "super-systems" structure and stability, but this stability tends to be of short-duration and in the long run complexly unpredictable, prone to critical events and trigger mechanisms that result in reformation of structures.

We would never ourselves notice these reticular structures in space time, if they indeed existed. If we sweep our arm through the air, what we might notice is the resistance of air particles to the motion of our arm--we definitely feel this if we stick our arm outside a fast moving vehicle. If we use are arm to strike at an object, a ball, we may in fact feel the reticulated structure of space-time in terms of the resistance or inertia of energy of the mass of the ball, and the force and energy required to articulate and swing our arm in repeated motions to strike the ball. I am not referring to the effects of gravity per se upon both our arm and the ball, but upon the requirement of accelerating an object in a state of rest to a sudden and rapid state of motion. Even if we are in deep space, it would still require energy to strike and set the ball in directional motion. We know from mechanical theory that energy must be input to get a reaction on the other side, less the energy loss of friction and other forms of resistance we might encounter.

The quantum-dynamic effects upon a fundamental level appear to defy what we consider to be the normal strictures of the properties of space and time. We tend to construe the normal or conventionalized structure of the Universe in four-space, in four dimensions and as otherwise consisting of a sense of perfect, albeit since Einstein dynamic, three Space in the fourth dimension of Time. Upon what we might call an instantaneous point structure of reality, at a quantum-dynamic level, these dimensions appear to break down. Scientists have hypothesized multiple dimensions possibly occurring discretely in the structure of physical reality, and I can even possibly see the reversal for instance of temporal event structures at this fundamental level, and if these conjectures were true we might further hypothesize indeed the existence of multiple, even possibly an infinite number of parallel universes that were connected upon a fundamental level with the conventional fabric of our own structures of physical reality, and yet which never otherwise overlapped.

This all seems mostly conjectural to me and possibly, ultimately unproveable, but what is interesting is the idea that what we might regard as normalized properties and restrictions of normal space time do appear not to hold in the same way at the quantum-dynamic level. I would argue that this is so because our normal sense of space-time is in fact associated with what we might call prototypical structures of protonic-based systems of matter. Space-time itself, as we understand this in four space, is a property emergent from and relative to protonic systems integration in reality. In this sense, conventional space-time as we know this, associated with the clock-like and rather perfect motion of celestial bodies, etc., can be seen as some what Machian, in the sense that it emerged with the emergent structures of mass-objects, matter and light in the cosmos.

This structure appears to break down as an associated, systems based set of properties, at a given level of the fundamental integration of reality. We must ask therefore, what relevance the principles of space and time might actually have, or not have, whether in their conventional or unconventional form, at these fundamental levels of integration, and if they have a modified significance, or hold no significance at all, then it is possible that there is a fine enough scale of reality at which our measurements no longer are possible, and at which our sense of time and space no longer may apply at all. If not, then we may speculate that at such a scale, distance and duration make little if any real difference, or a difference not like we understand distances and duration at least on a more human-sized scale.

This line of thinking logically corresponds with my basic hypothesis of nth-particulates and the hypothetical properties of zeroth entities. Nth-particulates, small, minimal temporary transformational entities, would essentially be the stuff of strings, springs and quarks that would compose the reticulational structure of spime and form the systematic basis of spime-dynamics. Zeroth entities would in turn compose Nth-particulates and whatever else these might be pictured as we can assume that properties of space and time, or alternatively, relative distance and duration, break down, such that one zeroth entity may essentially occur anywhere at any moment, in the entire universe perhaps, with the possible stipulation that two zeroth entities cannot occur simultaneously at the same instantaneous place and time without mutual cancellation of effect. If we are to speculate that some basic composite structure may exist at these levels, then these composite structures would in some sense demonstrate systematicity of basic primary and derivative secondary structures, of sorts, and would exhibit as well systematic variability of state change. A principle of universal change is predicated upon this, and so would be the systems-creation of higher level structures. If this is the case, the model for Nth-particulate structures I developed corresponds almost precisely to the "color" theory of quarks.

All known matter is protonic and it is an extension of the cosmological principle that the matter we encounter in our own solar system is basically the same as the matter that we will encounter through our telescopes at billions of light-years distance. There appear to be forms of matter we cannot see, at least not directly. It is the density of the nucleus of the atom, and particularly of the proton, upon which gravitation as we observe its effects seems to be based. Black holes must be constituted by a form of super-matter that is so dense and so strong in gravitational force, that no light can escape it. This form of super dense matter, or super-matter, I conjecture to consist of almost pure protons, like a huge dense nucleus. Black holes are conjectured to be extremely stable forms in the universe, and it is possible, if a theory of spime-gravitational dynamics is correct, that they may in fact produce massive amounts of new dark matter and dark energy that we associate with spime itself. We might only imagine the kinds of elemental nuclear structures that might be found in black holes, but we may find the realization of stable "magic islands" of high atomic number isotopes commonly occurring under such circumstances.

It appears to be the relative density of matter in time and space that produces mass and gravitational effects that we associate with mass. Given the equivalence of energy to mass, we may conclude that concentrated forms of energy represented by matter give rise to intense concentrated gravitational fields. If our understanding of gravitational dynamics is correct, there may occur no field in the universe without some gravitational effects occurring, but there seems to be a vast difference between the "flat" form of gravitation that is found in deep space and the extremely concentrated forms associated with black holes.

I suspect that even beyond "flat" gravitational fields, there are regions of very deep and empty Space in which "negative" gravitational fields may occur, and these are fields in which space-time is literally expansive and pulling itself apart in all directions. It is this possibility of negative gravitational effects and in these regions that we might conjecture the creation of pristine forms of protonic or light energy, and possibly of the apparent recession of galaxies that may be attributed to the expansion of the space in these regions.

I imagine a nucleus as like a string of pearls, starting with a proton, and every other pearl on the string is a neutron, up until the first eight or ten sets, at which point two or more neutrons begin occurring between each proton.

The actual arrangement or folding structure of this string within the nucleus may be complex. We might understand the sense of order of distribution of atomic number on the periodic table of the elements if we consider that each end of the string is always open, and becomes the next one added on to successfully. The string would thus grow in both directions, and each end would have its own folding structure that would be balanced and complementary to the other end. Because there is always a core proton at the center of this complex, we might consider that even when the atomic number is even, the string itself is always out of balance. The short end of the string would always be added onto in succession.

Only an even numbered complex would be "balanced" in a symmetrical manner, but each end would remain out of balance. One side of the nuclear structure would consist of even numbered protons, the other end would represent odd numbered protons. Each end would be added to successively. In fact, a nucleonic pair would be added at each end in succession.

The levels of the protons in sets of pairs would be as follows:

The addition of each additional proton proceeds with a neutron. There seems to be a dual structure of the nucleus that begins at the core or first level, and is replicated outward at each successful two levels--first eight, then eighteen. This string in the nucleus becomes wound around itself in a particular manner, with an inner core, consisting minimally of a helium nucleus of two protons and two neutrons, and then a second tier of eight protons and eight neutrons. These tiers may actually form nuclear shells at these levels, at which point.

The structure would be symmetrically balanced into two half formations. The folding structure would be complex as a quaternary formation as represented by the white, blue, yellow and green shading in the table above. The tendency for individual pairing entails that two strings will successively pair up on each side, creating a kind of quaternary structure. There would be four main levels in this system with the elements that we know of, and essentially two sub-levels in each of the main levels, excepting the first level. Each sub-level is of the same complementary configuration at their respective level. Increase in size is the result of the addition of a new main level to the formation. The increment on each half is two larger than the increment size of the previous level.

Based on the patterning found in the periodic table, we can deduce the following four main levels:

These levels replicate precisely the electron orbital levels that we find, and it leads us to suspect that the organization and ordering of electrons in orbitals reveals information about the arrangement of protons in a nucleus.

The paradox of this protonic pattern is that the structure of the previous level is completely replicated at the next higher level, which leads to the notion of a step-up structure. If we could see this in three-space, we would get the idea of a step pyramid that recurs at each level.

Below I replicate, for all the levels represented on the periodic table, the structure of this pyramid. The question is whether or not this structure carries any clues as to the patterning of the whole framework or not.

According to this pattern, the assumption is made that the proton core consists of a single two proton helium nucleus. Adjoined to these would be successive layers that branch out from either protonic end of the nuclear core. I replicate the total pattern of the periodic table in the diagram below:

This diagram displays all the elements arranged in an order that suggests levels and possible arrangement within the nucleus.

I have once again reconstructed the periodic table based upon the following rules:

1. Odd number elements before even numbered elements.

2. Odd number elements fill in at the top, even numbered elements at the bottom

3. Core axis fills first at each level ascending or descending.

4. Second lateral axis fills in secondly.

5. Third lateral axis fills in after the second.

6. Fourth lateral axis fills in after the third.

7. Levels all fill arbitrarily from left to right.

8. Primary side axis fill first ascending or descending, then Secondary side axis and Tertiary side axis, at each main level.

9. Non-metals have been highlighted in red or yellow font.

10. Metalloids have been highlighted in blue font.

11. Lathanides and Actinides have been highlighted pink.

12. Transition metals have been highlighted dark grey.

What is interesting to observe about this table is that families of elements, as indicated by their row number on the periodic table, recur in the same positions of the diagrammatic table above at their respective level. It is interesting in the case of the non-metals and metalloids, lanthanides, actinides and transition metals that they recur in approximately complementary positions of the table above and below the middle line.

Such a diagram that reworks the periodic table based upon some presuppositions about in what order the protons would be added to the nuclear structure, really only has value if it can lead to insight into how the possible folding structure or arrangement of protons within the nucleus occur. We can make several deductions based upon the above rearrangement of the period table:

1. There appears to be complementary pairing by location of similar odd and even elements above and below the line--similar elements recur in similar positions periodically both above and below.

2. There appears, beyond a complementary pairing, to be a quaternary structure in which each complementary pair is replicated twice both ascending and descending.

3. Each main level appears to attach to a main stem or axis.

4. Subsequent sub-levels from each main level appear to attach along secondary stems, or to branch off from the main axis.

It is somewhat challenging I think to think of the possibilities of these structures in 3 space and possible geometric linkage patterns that may replicate such a structural order and result in a prediction about the periodic grouping of protons within the nucleus.

If I were to directly interpret this model in terms of a 3-space structure of the nucleus, I would suggest that there is an essential nuclear core consisting of a helium nucleus. Around this are arranged 12 component structures, arranged as a quadripartite structure at 3 main levels. Each component structure increases in size and complexity the further removed (higher the level) that it is in the nucleus. Each component structure is built in the same way, with the addition of a new sub-level at each main level removed from the core. The component structures a primary (a) axis along which they are constructed (six components) and a secondary (b) axis (six components) and each axis is arranged symmetrically about the nuclear core. If we are to see this structure as some kind of optimal arrangement, then we might see the primary and secondary main axii as being arranged across the vertices of a tetrahedral structure, intersecting at the nuclear core. The rules seem to be the following:

1. Primary axis components will be completed at each level before the secondary axis components are constructed--lower levels.

2. Lower level will be completed before the next higher main level is begun.

3. With each higher main level, there is a general expansion of complexity with the addition of a new sub-level the rule of expansion is (number of sub-level proton points + 2 which suggests that with each new sub-level an extra proton will be added to the end of a sub-string or fold. This expansion is the same in all components at all levels.

The overall expansion of the nuclear structure reflects a non-linear framework of expansion that occurs in a linear manner. In other words, the framework that results from the addition of each successive proton to the structure fills in "slots" in an expansion space that if viewed from without would look as if the system were "doubling" in size at each main successive level.

It is known that such a "perfect" model may not actually occur in many instances--for example there are many cases where fusion may occur between pre-formed nuclei. The consequences of the rearrangement and fusion of two or more pre-formed nuclei are unclear. It is suspected that a general rearrangement of structure may occur in such cases to replicate an "optimum" configuration. The tremendous energy of fusion released when this occurs may be the consequence of many strong bonds being broken more or less in rapid succession or simultaneously, like an unzipping of the nucleus, and the reconfiguration of the components into a more stable arrangement. The structure suggested is something like the preceding diagram. We could assign each circle an atomic number and identity, if we chose to, based upon the previous table. If we were to cast this diagram in three space, rather than two-dimensionally, I would think of a quadripolar structure that is replicated through out. We might see orbital trajectories or part shells forming in kind of "donut" or torus shaped configurations around the nuclear core--in fact two torus that intersect one another in complex ways.

We can identify from the four main quadrants a total of eight symmetrically arranged half-quadrants--the growth in each of these half quadrants would be similar at each main level: one to two to three protons at each successive sub-level. This suggests a branching structure that is allowed as structural space opens up.  Association of groups on the periodic table suggest as well secondary branching structures that may occur across basic levels and between components of a single level.

The model described above suggests, among other things, that the actual structure of the nucleus is not really a string, though we may describe the order of its filling in as a sequential string arrangement. The nuclear structure appears to be reticular in shape, and the suggestion is that bonds between protons, obviously mediated by the presence of neutrons, may form bridges between the structures. The model suggested as well is that the nuclear core, consisting hypothetically of two protons and two neutrons, are themselves arranged in a tetrahedral configuration which becomes replicated along the same axis as the vertices of the core tetrahedron in all the main levels.

So far, we have left out of our math any mention of the role of neutrons except for the statement above. It is presumed that neutrons primary function is to mediate the bonds between two like-charged protons, by providing a neutral buffer between two particles of the same charge. Protons attach to neutrons, that themselves have been polarized possibly due to their previous attachment to another proton.

We may suggest that an open end of a proton always invites the addition of a neutron, and vice-versa, the open end of a neutron will invite the attachment, under the right conditions, of a proton, and sometimes, of another neutron.

In considering the possible relationship between neutrons and protons, I've gone back to the periodic table and made a simple table of atomic numbers compared to atomic weights to discover what kinds of trend-lines might be found there in a comparison. We have perfect linear growth with atomic number. In general, atomic weight is twice the atomic number, excepting Hydrogen which in its normal state does not carry an extra neutron.

The trick of this table occurs in column E, which is the difference between the average atomic weight and twice the atomic number. Up until Gallium (Atomic Number 32), the average number of neutrons to protons is just over twice. This number increases to about 2.3 times the amount between Germanium and Indium (Atomic # 49). From about Tin (50) and Astatine (85) the neutron number goes up to about 2. 5 times the proton number. From Radon (86) to Rutherfordian (104), the neutron number is above 2.5 times the proton number, and then slightly decreases at the highest numbered elements. The interpretation of these trends suggest that the addition of extra neutrons occurs primarily in the upper sub-levels of the higher main levels--particular at the third main level and the third and fourth sublevels. The expectation is that at these levels numerous "holes" open up in the reticulated structure of the nucleus--presumably at the end of the side-chains, where extra neutrons may attach between protons. I think this is predicted somewhat in the diagrammatic models of nuclear structure above, with spaces opening at the ends of side chains between quadrants. In fact, we find common extra insertions of neutrons beginning at atomic numbers 3 and 4, at the first atomic formations at the second main level--which suggests that additional neutrons may be added to structures throughout the higher order frameworks.

Observation of the trend lines of this column show that as the atomic number increases, the frequency of the addition of extra neutrons into the structure increases as well. The challenge of considering neutrons and their role in the construction of the nucleus is to realize that the natural distribution of isotopes on earth may be a fairly chaotic and random event structure, and may not represent the distribution of isotopes in other contexts in the universe.

The main trend to be noticed is that overall, for every proton, there is on average about 1.25 to 1.33 neutrons that are added. We can expect, somewhat for every third or fourth neutron added to the mix, an additional neutron added in.

It seems that for main level one by the diagram above, the average remains just slight above 1 proton to 1 neutrons. At main level 2, this average increases to about 1 proton to 1.25-1.35 neutrons (1 extra neutron for every 3-4 neutrons/protons), and at main level 3, the average increases to about 1 proton to 1.5 neutrons (1 extra neutron for every 2 neutrons/protons).

The structure of the nucleus has possibly much to do with the development of gravitational fields in the patterning of physical reality. The question arises that if a reticulated structure for the nucleus as described above is an accurate picture of its arrangement, then what can finally account for such systematic organization at such a small scale.

It is presumed that the role of the neutron is that of buffering between protons in the construction of a nucleus. Protons and Neutrons form nucleonic pairs. There is evidence that they may even be tranvestite to one another, possibly regularly switching identity, and we can think of such a pair not as two separate entities but as a single systems. These nucleonic pairs appear primarily to occur in context of a nucleus having more than a single proton. It is presumed therefore that neutrons play an important role in maintaining the structural stability of the nucleus, and, when a nucleus is large and replete with neutrons, we expect that the nucleus is less stable. With the presence of numerous additional neutrons, we can expect increasing rates of radioactive decay processes occurring.

Radioactive decay may take the following forms:

1. alpha particle emission: during which a whole Helium nucleus is emitted. This is found in higher order elements. This suggests that atomic combinations are fairly stable in paired sets of neutrons and protons. It is associated with the incremental loss of atomic mass (-4) and atomic number (-2).

2. beta particle emission: which is the discharge of an electron. By the theory suggested here, discharge of an electron would be equivalent to the spontaneous transition of a neutron to a proton in a nucleus, representing an increase in atomic number of 1 (+1).

3. gamma radiation emission: common especially to heavy isotopes, not associated with change of atomic mass or number.

4. positron emission: a positive charged electron, which according to the theory of a dynamic state universe, would represent the spontaneous transition of a proton to a neutron, hence a loss of atomic number of 1 (-1)

5. K-electron capture: capture of inner most electron, presumably more frequent with larger nuclei in which inner orbitals are closer to the nucleus, and representing the stimulated transition, according to this theoretical framework, of a proton to a neutron, hence a loss in atomic number of 1 (-1).

This leads to a basic theory of protonic systems. The main points of the theory are as follows:

1. Protons are stable binding states because the threshold energy to achieve them is so great that it is not commonly realized.

2. A Proton consists of a captured positron that effectively binds the hidden mass of space-time.

3. A neutron is a proton, with the addition of a captured electron.

4. Protons are the indirect by-product of the production of electrons and positrons by the head-on collision of high energy photons.

5. Protons represent a stable "state" of nature the properties of which are a positive charge unit of 1 and an atomic mass unit of 1.

6. Structural mechanisms may occur, such as with radioactive decay, that effectively by-pass the threshold activation level of a proton, leading to the transformation of the proton into some other state.

I am of the opinion that the universe exists with certain polar states--charge is one of these polar states, and mass is another. Any positive charge that may occur, must be balanced by a negative charge. Any positive mass, must be counterbalanced by a state of what I call "negative mass." In terms of charge, a positron and an electron are polar opposites, and their opposite charges cancel one another out. Similarly, the hypothetical positronic binding of mass in a proton creates what can be called a positive mass imbalance. "Gravitation" is the result of the negative mass of the surrounding space-time manifold.

Empty Space, or what might be called "flat" space-time, may be said to be mass and charge balanced, normally. A proton is a curious and paradoxical entity, according to this theory, because it would be seen possibly as both charge and mass imbalanced and yet as the most durable and stable state we may know of in the entire cosmos.

The question to answer is why is it a positively charged particle should be capable of binding the hidden energy and mass of space-time, and thus of polarizing this mass from its surrounding context? And then, why should this become such an apparently stable state in the fabric of reality?

How to Make Hydrogen, 101

The truly observable trends of the formation of matter and mass-based, protonic systems in the universe suggests that in general things move from dispersed and relatively diffuse states of energy to increasingly concentrated and dense forms of matter, with a great many energy transformations occurring between, ending eventually in a black-hole or similar end state. To hypothesize a start state that is already dense and concentrated seems to work against these general observations.

The general problem of explaining a dynamic state universe has been to explain the seeming production of pristine hydrogen gas, essentially protonic nuclei, from apparently nothing. Pristine hydrogen is what I would refer to as being that hydrogen formed by primary processes without the necessary preexistence of other forms of matter or derivative forms of energy associated with matter. It was or still is hydrogen that was formed, somehow, to make up the first stars that came to be.

We know in all our theories of reality that one cannot make something from nothing. If Space is empty, and devoid of anything, we cannot use it as the basis for explaining how energy is made or how protons might be formed from its manifolds.

If we hypothesize that what is apparent nothingness in the void of Space, may in fact harbor something hidden and unseen by light, unfelt or unobserved except by means of the constraints we experience in motion and gravitation, then what at first seemed like trying to make something out of nothing instead becomes an argument of yielding something known from something else that remains largely unknown.

What is clear in the universe is a huge, more or less random distribution of tremendous amounts of hydrogen gas that forms huge cosmic cloud formations. Within these formations occur new star forming areas, where new stars are being produced in vast numbers. The scale of all this, by any earthly proportions, is truly mind-boggling. The received model of the Big Bang would argue that all this gas spread out everywhere in the Universe was all the product of a single event structure at some very remote point in our common past. According to this  "all at once" model no other mechanism need be invoked or explained to account for this abundance and omnipresence of fundamental hydrogen.

The tremendous cosmic abundance of basic hydrogen, and its omnipresence over vast regions of space, and the tremendous uncounted numbers of galaxies we can see through our telescopes, lead me to suspect that in fact hydrogen production is not only a common process to the universe, but widespread and continuing as I write and as one may read this.

These huge hydrogen collections do not necessarily appear to be gravitationally unified in the same sense that we may refer to the solar system as a cosmological structure that is gravitationally unified. How they accrete as a relatively dense cloud formation is anybody's guess, but I suspect the accrete in a manner that we can observe the condensation of large cloud formations in the earth's sky, especially on days when it is presumed there is much moister in the atmosphere. Regions in which there are large amounts of ionized protons, perhaps more or less randomly spread out over very large areas, can be expected to be self-organizationally productive of large cloud formations on a more or less random and cosmological basis.

What might vast plasma fields of undetected proton ions in deep Space look like? Would they even be detectable as such, shorn of any electrons? Accretion of hydrogen in such might proceed from the production of electrons and positrons due to the collision of photons in the field of ionized protons.  Electrons would tend to be captured by free protons. Hydrogen, thus formed, would occur in increasing densities until they would accrete into large gaseous cloud formations--these formations might achieve some minimal gravitational unification, especially in central areas with increasing density.

The question remains how do we explain possible vast formations of ionized plasma fields in space, without their being put there by the processes of solar-wind ejected from star systems. If the theory above has any merit, the suggested mechanism is the spontaneous formation of a proton ion by means of the capture of a positron formed by the collision of light within a certain space-time manifold or context. It has been presumed that positrons are of short duration and rapidly decay or become annihilated after their spontaneous formation. Brief formation of positronium, of a positron nucleus and an electron, as an intermediary step to full proton production is suggested. Production of electron and positron pairs in nature can be explained by the presence of electro-magnetic fields and high-energy electro-magnetic radiation.

All of this though I think beats around the bush of the original hypothetical formation of protonic ions under conditions where no other matter occurs and in the relative absence of energy fields.

The suggested pathway by means of the dynamic state theory is the conversion of quintessential energy into protons, or into a form of energy that will create a field within which protons might spontaneously occur. Again, the suggest that the noticeable but mysterious dark energy and dark matter presumed to exist in space may in fact consist of these forms of protonic ions or pre-protonic energy fields.

I would call such regions of space protonic-production fields, and  possibly pre-protonic ionization energy fields. We need to be able to account for them in terms that we have at our disposal. I hypothesize a form of radiation and electro-static field arising under certain conditions of dynamic spime flow--basically occurring in four-dimensional "space-time vortices" or in the von Karmen trails of such vortices within which Space as we know this comes to exhibit other properties than we conventionally attribute to it. It is possible that these regions may be capable of focusing enough spime as a kind of concentrated gravitational flow without an object of mass being at the center of this flow.

I propose therefore a model of "white sources" that are at the opposite end of the protonic system trajectory from that of "black holes." A white source must be seen as a region of intense production of possibly light energy in concentrated forms, within temporary electro-magnetic fields, and within which electrons, positrons and ultimately proton ions become mass produced in prodigious quantities. These ions would be distributed from the source, possibly in the form of powerful jets or ejecta emerging from the polar axis of such a system. It is possible in such contexts positrons produced through collision of high energy photons in a common electro-magnetic field are captured, first as positronium and then as hydrogen nuclei.

A white source would resemble what we refer to as quasars--relatively small regions, a few light months in diameter, that are much smaller than distant galaxies, and much larger than individual star sources. These white sources appear in radio astronomy to be at remote cosmological distances. They emit intensities of light that are far greater than that found in a typical galaxy.

If this theory is correct, then what we understand to be quasars are "white source" formations that are formed through huge vortices of space-time, productive of tremendous amounts of light energy, and in turn, productive of hydrogen nuclei--i.e., proton ions that collect in enough quantity to produce nebulae that in turn lead to stellar production systems.

Star Systems as the Forges of Matter

The only known mechanism we know of for the production of matter is in terms of nuclear fusion, and sometimes, nuclear fission. The only places we know of where these processes occur naturally and in abundance are in the solar furnaces of stars. We cannot realistically account for the formation or creation of new matter, or for that matter, of any matter, even the matter beneath our own feet, in the form of terra firma, without resorting to this single system.

Presumably, most of the elements that are produced by a star, are produced in the last phases of a stars long life cycle, in the closing ages, so to speak.  The starting material is a tremendous amount of hydrogen plasma gravitationally unified. We have identified star formation regions in the universe, and these are associated with large formations of hydrogen clouds.

These systems lead to stars that fit into the conventional types we have astronomically identified. We do not know the exact sequences that might be followed in the formation of elements in the nuclear fusion furnaces of stars. Presumably, as lower atomic number elements fuse, they produce high number nuclear elements. This process would be largely chaotic and random. Fission may enter into this process--high atomic number nuclei subsequently breaking down into lower number elements. Star systems that are very hot in their final phases continue to be very dynamic and active--in time, even with an abundance of leftover hydrogen and helium nuclei, such systems tend to quit their main hydrogen burning/production phase and consist of higher densities of fused nuclei.

It is presumed that the most radioactively stable elements, between numbers 50 and 80, like Iron, would eventually be the most abundant element in such systems. This is explained as the elements of maximum mass defect and binding energy, and the evolution of systems from nuclear fusion of lower number and fission of higher number elements would evolve high energy, as observed in the late stages of star systems. Presumably, nuclear processes would push towards greater concentrations of elements with the highest binding energies, which peak out at Iron, at which point processes of fission and fusion would slow down and eventually yield to other radioactive processes. This would be the final death throes of a star, sometimes associated, depending upon gravitational energies involved, with a great implosion or a great explosion of remaining gases and star material. It is evident that a number of pathways may be followed leading to different distributions of end elements. Theories have been worked out which explain some of these pathways.

A normal sized star, which begins for most of its trajectory with the production and burning of hydrogen nuclei, will therefore tend to finish its trajectory with a mass of left over iron and other heavy elements like copper, nickel, and cobalt. An extinguished star will undoubtedly smolder radioactively for a very long time after. This leftover material may be spread out or remain a single gravitationally unified entity.

If the theory of the dynamic state universe is correct, we can speculate that earlier systems tended to be smaller and longer lived than later systems, and further and fewer between. In time, systems grew in size and more numerous. It is likely that fewer black holes or neutron stars were formed early on, but numerous brown dwarfs and smaller entities that ended up essentially as the material for planets and other forms of stellar matter. The total population of stars increased over time, possibly through the production of non-pristine hydrogen by secondary pathways other than those "white sources" suggested above. Gradual accumulation of large quantities of hydrogen gas has tended overall to lead to formation of massive star systems.

On must wonder too whether or not at some earlier phase in the universe if there were not more frequent star debris, meteorites, asteroids in the universe, or at least in parts of the universe through which our solar system traversed.

The time frame for the development of these systems seems to be quite extended. If the earth is a product of a stellar furnace, which itself may have lasted some 10 billion years in length, and the earth is known to have been earth approximately 4 to five billion years, at which time it was presumably captured by the present sun in its trajectory, then we must push for a fairly early date. By no means should we consider the earth to have been necessarily a part of the first generation of stars or planets to have formed in the universe.

I think we might deal with these vast dimensions better if we think about the relativity of time to size scale--an event that happens in an instant by our measure may for an atom be a prolonged duration--similarly--what may seem like for ever by our standards may by the universe as a whole be but like a day or a year.

The earth is the product of such formation in a star, as are all planets, planetoids, moons, meteorites, asteroids or asteroids. Whether these objects aggregate subsequent to their formation and distribution, are unknown. Certainly asteroids and meteorites must represent the fragments of leftover star systems that somehow broke apart, either due to destructive gravitational fields in relation to other neighboring stars, or through unknown internal mechanisms that may result in the explosive disintegration of a star and the ejection of its material into deep space.

Stars may explode or implode of their own volition and internalized energies. Sometimes stars form as parts of binary systems, and the gravitational strains of such systems may eventually lead to the destruction of one of the pair. Stars may possible also collide at some point in their complex motion through Space with other stars, which collision may be catastrophic for one or both systems.

Presumably, the cold or cooled leftover hulls and carcasses of old dead stars, not large enough to collapse beyond to black hole densities, must have accumulated in regions of space in fairly large number, and presumably these stellar remnants would be mostly invisible to our long-distance observations. These are the entities in space that we suspect of collision and mutual destruction with one another, to fragment and form a variety of possible objects that we know to commonly exist in space. We suspect that some regions of space may be littered with the remains of old and dead stars, and must be veritable cosmological bone yards.

It leads as well to a question of the true age of material, for instance, of the earth and of metal in the earth's core. If this was indeed forged in some other sun, at the terminus of that sun's life-span, then the protons and atoms that constitute the earth must be very ancient indeed. We assume that the material leftover from the burnout of a sun must remain radioactively hot for a very long time. Most material in a sun would be radioactive, and be constituted presumably by neutron impregnated isotopes of almost every element found within its material. Such material would have required a very long time subsequent to their formation for their radioactive cooling, especially to reach the level that we observe, for instance, now in the earth.

The Black Hole as a Bottomless Hole in Space-Time

The black hole appears to be an oddity of nature, predicted by the theory of general relativity, and the dynamics of space-time. We may never really know in any direct sense exactly what is within a black hole. But we can guess and make deductive inferences based upon our theoretical insights into the structure of physical reality. Black holes are predicted as the stable end  product of a star of a certain size and massiveness, the energies of collapse in its final stage determine that it continues collapse past the binding thresholds of normal atoms--electrons are blown off the atom, yielding a solid nuclear core bereft of any electrons. It is know that neutron stars form as the product of stars of slightly smaller mass, and that essentially what is left over of the star matter after the final collapse is a neutron laden core. It is conjectured in the case of the black hole, that even neutrons of nuclei might be shed, or at least shorn of their electrons to become protons, and these protons along with the protons that are already a part of the remaining nuclei of the star system continues collapsing gravitationally inward, until a density is reached that the gravitational force is so great that light itself cannot escape.

It would be bizarre to imagine what a purely protonic piece of "Super Matter" might be like, so dense that a spoonful of it might possibly drop right through the earth and carry the earth with it. Essentially, I imagine it to be a gigantic atomic nucleus, with an almost unlimited atomic number. Rather it may in fact consist of a crystal form of many super-nuclei of very high atomic number. Might a "super matter" be even more dense than a mass of protonic matter--perhaps binding states are achievable that are greater than that encountered in the compass of a single proton?

It is apparent that these black holes, being of such great gravitational force, act like cosmic vacuum cleaners that suck up all things that come within its grasp. What would become of matter that falls into a black-hole? I suspect that it too becomes shorn of its electrons, and then of its neurons, until it obtains gravitational equilibrium with its core and accrete to this core to become a slightly more powerful entity. The other question becomes, what is the long term trajectory of a black hole. Can it continue to grow and increase in density and size? What are the reasonable limits of such a system as the possible end state of matter?

I would assert that the Black hole is a secondary derivative protonic system, the end result of the cosmological state-path trajectory of the development of protonic systems from their basic primary states in the form of relatively simple symmetrical balances in the fundamental structure of space-time, balances of charge and mass, to the formation of protons and atoms, through the development of normal matter in the cosmos.

I have in the course of this extended chapter developed a basic theory of protonic systems. This theory has been fit within the framework of metasystems development.

1. We begin with basic primary systems, which are the mechanisms of binding space-time to produce mass-based systems, which are essentially protonic nuclei.

2. These systems coalesce in nuclei to form the basis for atoms, what I have referred to as derivative basic protonic systems. These constitute all forms of matter.

3. Hydrogen gas that is created from "white sources" that arise from gravitation structures in the Universe accumulates until stars are formed, star systems being secondary basic protonic systems.

4. Star systems coalesce gravitationally to form large and complex gravitational structures, name galaxies. Large stars, at the end of their life-cycle, collapse predictably to form black holes, which are considered an end-state of the development of protonic systems, or derivative secondary systems.