Conclusions

Universal Relativity

& the Inferential Structure of Physical Reality

The basis for the claim of universal relativity lies in the statement that there can exist in physical reality no non-relative or absolute frames of reference by which the parameters of space and time, and the principles of motion and inertia, are not a function of the relative frame that these measures occur within. In other words, any measure of mass, energy, direction, velocity or space or time that we may make in the physical universe, will be made relative to the frame of reference it occurs within, and this frame of reference itself is relative to some larger frame or sets of frames of reference. What appears stable and absolute at one level or frame of reference, will appear dynamic and relative in some larger frame of reference. From this we can conclude the following:

            There are no final or total frames of reference by which all other frames can be evaluated or standardized. There is neither a grand total frame of reference encompassing all other frames, nor is there any smallest frame of reference that will be totally encompassed by all other frames.

            Frames of reference are stratified in a hierarchical manner, such that smaller frames of reference, or "systems," are relative to larger frames of reference, which in turn are relative to even larger frames, and so on ad infinitum.

It appears at this time, from our observational sphere, that the frame of reference at any level is characterized primarily by the concept or the condition I would refer to as "gravitational unification." In other words, within that given frame, at whatever scale we may define, all parametric values or measures that are relevant to the description of a physical system are "coordinate" within that system, and from that standpoint, the frame of reference appears fixed.

The theoretical basis of physical systems theory stems from several basic observations of the physical universe and the presupposition of the cosmological principle, that what is true for our observational sphere of physical reality, holds true in all parts of the knowable physical universe. In other words, a fundamental framework of universal relativity holds that the fundamental laws that govern the relation and behavior of things in our observational corner of the universe, hold true in all corners of the universe, within the same universal frame of reference. This may or may not prove to be the case in the largest sense, but, for the sake of the unification and coherence of our science, we assume that it holds true in a significant and basic way for most of the universe.

The obverse side of the application of the cosmological principle to a consideration of the larger scope and size of the universe, is that, though the same basic laws physical reality may apply equally in all sectors of the vast region of the universe, it appears as well that in the largest frame of reference the patterning of the universe is non-isotropic in that it follows no sense of overarching order or pattern, but at some regional level its patterning breaks down into random and stochastically determined directions.

It is not impossible to call into question both these fundamental tenets of the cosmological principle--to hypothesize that in the larger frame, basic rules and principles that appear to hold in our own observational fields are different or no longer apply in the same manner, and conversely, that in the largest scale of measurement--the cosmological scale--there may in fact be some general sense of isotropism of pattern that we, in our locally bounded view, cannot or have not yet noticed. But again, for the sake of our science, we assume that the cosmological principle will hold for most of the universe that is connected, more or less remotely, to our own corner. In the largest frame of reference available to us, we assume that the rules and principles that order physical reality as we experience it apply with equal validity and force in all other frames to which we might be connected, however indirectly.

Another way of stating this concept of universal relativity of gravitational systems is to state a principle something like the following:

There are no non-relative gravitational frames of reference.

Such a concept implies the validity of the cosmological principle in both senses--in the largest since, we can find no final limit or absolute boundary to the universe by which all other frames become oriented. This implies as well, among other things, that the universe is a non-zero state system and that it is encompassed or encompasses and infinite number of nested gravitational frames of reference. If there were an overarching universal frame of reference, then there would be some non-relative set of constants that would apply to all frames. The only two sets of constants that might fit such a description are the speed of light, or c, and what is known as the gravitational constant, or k. These are related, among other things, to the Planck constant.

Universal relativity implies as well the concept of the relative independence of frames that are contained within larger frames, such that the motions and measures serving to define a sub-system, are independent of the motions and measures defining the larger system that the sub-system is contained within. A subsystem is also independent of other subsystems that are not directly related to that system in a gravitational hierarchy.

The concept of relative gravitational frames of reference invites further speculation about the relativistic structure of physical reality. It is a case that relative gravitational frames of reference define units as subsystems that are in effect separate from the larger systems that contain them--fundamental relations within the frame are determined--the clocks and yard sticks are predefined in their increments by the relative gravitational fields that determine and define the system, and that delimit the system as separate and unique. These systems are marked almost invariably by some focal center of gravity that, at least in a local sense, is predominant, even though other background gravitational forces may still be found and felt to exist.

It seems that the essential question is how exactly does gravitation accomplish this kind of pattern and relativistic ordering in the universe--how can local gravitational istropisms override much larger and more powerful gravitational systems, in effect nullifying their effects within the local system such that this local system proceeds independently in its own state-path trajectory.

There is a clear sense that with gravitational attraction and radiation, that the former kind of cohesive force is most powerful locally, and quickly diminishes with distance from its center. The cumulative power of this local attraction of gravity may be much weaker than a larger range, more pervasive force that is defined by gravitational radiation from distant gravitating sources, but it seems to override this distant force, or set of forces emanating for divergent multiple sources, at least within a local frame of reference. Outside or beyond the boundaries of such a system, which might be referred to as the escape limits of a gravitational system, broader and more diffuse forces emanating from distant but even more powerful sources take over and become significant.

Several caveats can be concluded from these kinds of observations:

            1. First, it is likely that space-time in any particular instance can only be oriented in one way, or set to one system, at any one time, and resetting space-time entails a sense of disequilibrium and an abrupt departure from a sense of local equilibrium. In other words, any area of space-time can be only oriented in one specific direction at one time, or else disequilibrium of space-time will result and will be resisted. This isotropic property of space-time is determined by the dominant gravitational source that serves to constrain and delimit that area of space-time as a part of dynamic system.

            2. Second, of alternative distant sources of gravitation, it appears that the strongest source will achieve predominance in creating a concentric center of gravity of the entire system about itself. If we are to seek the strongest gravitational source for any system, then we must look to the center of the system to find the most massive and gravitationally powerful object. Another way of stating this is something like the following--there is a clear gravitational hierarchy and a competition among gravitational bodies for attractants--clearly the strongest survive and the weaker bodies become subservient or bound to the dominant body. In this sense we can see a clear sense of order in the cosmographical distribution of the physical universe.

            3. There is a third caveat possible, and I believe it goes something like this. Should two bodies of relatively equal gravitational power come into proximity with one another, without collision, then it is likely that the two bodies will enter into a kind of spatial waltz or pirouette about a commonly defined virtual center of gravity that is defined as some midpoint between the two systems at which point the gravitational attraction of one object precisely cancels that of the other object. Such a system is probably anomalous in the universe, but not uncommon in occurrence, and it is possible that it leads to interesting outcomes.

            These characteristics point of a certain duality about gravitational fields, which pre-structure and determine the isotrope and relativistic properties of the local space-time continuum in which they occur. First, gravitational fields are defined by a form of gravitational radiation that, like electromagnetic radiation, is far reaching and in essence may be almost "instantaneous." We get from this the notion of "action at a distance" the result of which is a form of "remote attraction." Secondly, in a local framework, gravitational radiation appears to shape and orient the space-time manifold in certain discrete and directional ways, leading to the creation of gravity systems that serve to cause falling bodies to light to earth. This second force is strongest at its most proximate coordinates, and appears to dissipate rapidly with any great distance, to the point of becoming negligible or even nullified by the range of divergent gravitational forces emanating from a variety of alternative host bodies in deeper space.

This apparent duality of patterning of gravitation has, I believe, critical significance for a theory of gravitation and gravitational unification of space-time.

Another interesting facet of the notion of relative gravitational frames of reference is that though each frame can be said to be locally independent of other alternative frames of which it is composed, or with which it coexists, or of which it is a part, nevertheless all gravitational frames of reference at all levels appear to be integrated in a fairly seamless and smooth web of forces and attractions, such that the transition to one frame to another is one that is largely unnoticed except perhaps for the feeling of certain inertial forces. The challenge is understanding how such a plethora of different local gravitational systems can become effectively integrated as part of larger systems, as if they were not independent frames, but fully subordinate frames, while at the same time retaining the relative independence of their own internal frame of reference. We obviously notice the sun's light far more than we notice its gravity--if we throw an apple into the sky--it does not start flying to the sun, but falls back to the earth as if the sun were nothing but a neutral bystander--and from a gravitational standpoint of anything that is within our earthbound frame of reference, it is indeed only a giant heat generator and light bulb for the earth.

The question is to understand how the universe becomes gravitationally integrated and unified as a single composite system, regardless of all the local discontinuities and the countless subsystems that are defined independently within it. Needless to say there must occur a vast interstitial network of space-time fabric, relatively devoid of any matter, which serve as gravitational transition zones between different gravitational bodies, which serve to both unite and separate these different systems as both separate and as part of a larger system. These interstitial zones are undoubtedly defined by relative distances between gravitational systems, but they may also be defined by other properties--perhaps a turbulence or inter-tidal zone of gravitational neutralization at which competing gravitational waves from distant alternative sources basically interfere with one another in a destructive manner, canceling one another out and essentially rendering the space as if it were without gravity from any particular source. If this is the case, such inter-space should not be seen as the smooth and calm space without any disequilibrium, but more like a sea of cross-cutting eddies and waves that clash and crash into one another and broil in all different directions at the same time.

For instance, on earth, we do not notice the motion of the earth in its rotation or orbit around the sun except for the passages of the sun and the moon and the gradual changing of the seasons. We can see the motion of ourselves and earthbound bodies in the earth--a car or train moving relative to ourselves. But these earthbound motions become unified and irrelevant to the motion of the earth about the sun. Similarly, we do not notice the motion of the sun or the solar system about the Milky Way galaxy. In fact, we may as a system be traveling in almost an infinite number of directions, at an infinite number of different velocities, without our knowing it.

To the next larger frame, a gravitational system is unified if all its parts occur as a single system to the larger frame. The solar system would appear as a single system from the point of view of a distant star, even though from the point of view of the earth, it appears to be a complex set of motions of a number of planets and lesser bodies about the sun.

In this regard, we may speculate upon the following kind of proposition:

In any given gravitational frame of reference, the net cumulative value of all larger scale frames of reference is gravitationally zero.

We might say that an infinite number of independent motions in the universe has a reverse unification affect in relation to the immediate gravitational system, such that all motions tend in the largest sense to cancel one another out and to appear fixed. Similarly, we can say that any set of nested subsystems of a given gravitational system that is unified, appears as a single unity within that system, and thus their net cumulative value in relation to the larger frame of reference they occur within are also zero.

Then we might go one step further and speculate on something like the following:

The value of the immediate gravitational frame of reference is zero less the net inertial forces involved in the motion and dynamics of the local system.

In other words, we understand the relative parameters of any local system in terms of its net deviation from the zero-equilibrium established by its gravitational frame of reference. All higher or lower orders of motion are canceled out. We can say that a system achieves relative gravitational equilibrium within the larger frame of reference when its net deviations from zero-equilibrium become non-dynamic or do not change unless affected by agencies external to the system. Such systems will tend to indefinitely preserve their established patterns of motion in a stable manner.

We might speculate as well that gravitational unification upon any and in theory every local level, implies gravitational relativity on the universal or grand scale, just as the relative independence of nested frames of reference implies a lack of non-relative frames on a grand scale.

In terms of gravitational unification of subsystems, we can see that the center of gravity for any subsystem becomes the key defining point of consideration for the system as a unity in relation to the next larger system the at it occurs within. Another way of looking at this is that gravitational unification is the result of, or alternative results in, the creation of a common center of gravity by which all known sub-elements become achieve relative gravitational equilibrium.

Such a system of gravitational frames of reference implies a kind of well system of nested gravitational frames of reference, such that locally concentrated gravitational centers that occur locally are part of deeper and broader systems that are locally less powerful, but cumulatively much greater. The gravitational field exists as a kind of well system of energies in which the relative strength or frequency to possible wavelength of gravitational energy exists along a gradient of increasing speeds. I would hypothesize that these speeds all tend to be greater than the speed of light.

It is also the case that random, locally anomalous motions can occur within gravitationally unified systems to fundamentally alter the equilibrium of the system. The entire system can be seen to be stochastically chaotic in the sense that perturbations in one part of a system can result in resonating reverberations in other remote regions of such a system. Systems may be responding to such anomalous patterns without our realizing it, unless, like a meteorite crashing in from space, they intrude in a real way upon our immediate frame of reference itself. It is unlikely but not to imagine the possibility of our sun eventually crashing into another solar system, or of two galaxies or clusters coming to occupy a common ground. This is a consequence of the relative independence of all systems, such that the gravitational unification of one system does not directly effect the unification of any alternate subsystem that is occurring simultaneously in some other region.

*****

Gravitational unification implies another principle that may have profound implications for the system as a whole. Universal relativity rests upon a hypothetical notion that I will refer to as the principle of Universal Simultaneity. The concept of universal simultaneity is logically demanded by the cosmological principle of universal relativity if we accept certain things as being true:

The principle of universal simultaneity is important if we are to construe a physical universe that exists in some kind of real time and space. This concept is lost sight of in general relativity theory that sets the parameters of the speed of light as somehow the ultimate limit and measure of distances in the universe.

            1. The universe occurs everywhere at the same time in an instantaneous manner. This is what we can refer to as the "instantaneous universe." Even if the total instantaneous universe is beyond our ability to see, we must surmise based upon observational evidence that the instantaneous universe exists.

            2. The relativity of time within an instantaneous universe is merely the change of parametric scale of the system depending upon the gravitational frame of reference the clock occurs within. Time dilation that is a consequence of relativity theory is a natural outcome of the changing scale by which time would be measured.

The paradox of this is that in the largest scale imaginable, the instantaneous universe would be considered to be eternally frozen or in a sense time-less. Time on the largest scale would have no value. Time is only a measure of, and measured in terms of, local or regional frames of reference of subsystems.

Universal simultaneity implies an important relationship of absolute distance, which states that no matter how fast a vehicle or line of communication between two distant objects in the universe, the distance between these objects is always absolute and fixed within the frame of reference that it occurs. This is an important principle that maintains the spatial order and relations of things in the universe, and determines that the universe cannot instantaneously collapse upon itself or radically alter its spatial patterning unless some outside set of forces is brought to bear upon this patterning.

Temporal dilation and spatial contraction/expansion is evidence of the relative independence of different gravitational frames of reference that affect subsystems. An object traveling close to the speed of light occupies a different gravitational frame of reference compared to a similar object that is traveling the pace of a snail.

The principle of universal simultaneity must be regarded as an important concept in the understanding of the hypothetical universe, as it states in general terms that a substantive physical universe can and must exist beyond the relativistic boundaries determined by our own light-based spheres of observation. In other words, we cannot see or guess the exact instantaneous disposition of the total universe at this moment or the next, when all we can see is light from stars that is thousands, millions or billions of years old. Nevertheless, because of the observational relativity of our light, we do not necessarily conclude that the instantaneous universe cannot or does not exist. We infer its existence, and it becomes part of what can be called the "inferable Universe" that exists beyond the boundaries of the "observable Universe"

The principle of universal simultaneity has other important implications to our understanding of the hypothetical and inferable universe. First, it leads us to believe that though there may be no non-relative frames of gravitational reference in any grand cosmological sense, there must be some larger and larger frame of reference for the universe as a whole within which we may come to understand even the non-isotrope juxtaposition of its many subsystems. In other words, the instantaneous universe must be held together, or gravitationally unified by some means, even if it is the default of a lack of a central gravitational frame of reference in shared space-time, and even though we may not be able to directly observe such unification. Even the hot-big bang model implicitly suggests a scheme of the grand unification of the universe in terms of its expansion and possible contraction. This is linked to the relative isotrope curvature of space-time.

In an instantaneous universe, both time and space become meaningless or non-relative parameters. An instantaneous universe would encompass all simultaneously, and time would be immeasurable and therefore meaningless. Like the related principle of Singularity, the principle of universal Simultaneity suggests some kind of absolute end state or non-relative frame of reference. We may or may not accept such a principle. It may be the case that real systems may approach such absolute conditions to an infinite degree, but never obtain them. In other words, the principle of Universal Simultaneity exists as a possibility, as a possibility demanded by the instantaneous patterning of the inferable universe, but it may not exist as anything more than such a possibility. It may be ultimately an unrealizable possibility that is there because it is inherent to the structural order of the universe in the most basic of senses.

*****

The question of universal simultaneity of an inferable universe suggests that in the largest sense the universe may be in fact what I have referred to as a "dynamic state" universe. A dynamic state universe can be looked upon as infinite. In a universe in which there occurs no non-relative states, the only true absolute possible is that of change itself. In other words, in such a universe, everything is changing continuously, on its own scale, relative to its own gravitational frame of reference. Unification of systems can only be achieved in some relative and local sense. A dynamic state universe would suggest that even constants like the gravitational constant may be changing at its own rate in its own way.

A way of stating the implications of a dynamic-state universe is to state the following conditions that might apply:

1. There are no non-variable constants in a dynamic state universe.

2. There are no discontinuous or discrete states separate from alternate states in a dynamic state universe.

Whatever constants we might wish to apply to a dynamic state universe, we must realize the possibility that in some larger frame of reference, those properties that might appear to be constant and unchanging may be in fact alterable and quite variable.

All variables that are subject to change do so in a continuous and steady manner--in other words, we can have no discontinuous or sudden disruptions in a dynamic state universe, which implies that the universe should change from one state to the next without apparent connection between subsequent states.

A dynamic state universe therefore comes to imply a general model of the universe that is in continuous transition or flux at all levels, even at the most basic levels. It suggests that the very principles and laws that govern the universe from one state or stage to the next may vary continuously in ways we do not yet understand. Evidence has been interpreted suggesting that the gravitational constant is weakening, and that the overall force of gravitation in the universe is weakening, such that all forms of matter, and perhaps space-time itself, is gradually expanding, albeit in relativistic ways. Regardless of such theoretical interpretations, it remains the case that we still do not understand the basic patterns or processes or properties that govern the universe. In this regard we must ask how much the speed of light, as a constant that is central to the Einsteinian theories of relativity, may not in fact be, in some general frame of reference, a variable that is a defining characteristic of our own physical and observational limits in the universe.

In consideration of a dynamic state universe, it is important to contrast this with the conception of a fundamentally static-state universe--a universe that in some basic sense does not change and remains permanently unalterable. We may state a third precept of a dynamic state universe, the inference that:

3. In a dynamic state universe, there is nothing that is permanent in an absolute sense.

This last point suggests that matter as we know it may be a function of a phase or period of development of the larger universe--however stable we may presume protons or other essential particles to be, it is possible that in the long run the total ratio and composition of matter in the universe may change in some irreversible direction.

This last point is important because it defines change as uni-directional and as inherently irreversible. We see this in several principles relating to space and time. Motion is always unidirectional in an instantaneous sense, and such motion is always nonreciprocal. Similarly, clocks always move in one direction, but never in reverse, at least in what we can refer to as a hypothetical positive state universe. The unidirectionality of all change processes, whether this is entropic decay or the motion of objects in space or the passage of time, suggests that change processes are dimensionally constrained in some complex manner that we do not yet understand. This issue becomes important when we consider the possibility of multi-dimensional or parallel universal realities that simultaneously coexist with one another.

*****

The basis for an alternative conceptualization of physical systems stems from several observations of our own physical reality:

1. Gravitational radiation, and its effects within gravitational systems, appears to be not only ubiquitous and omnipotent in the universe, but these systems appear to last forever without significant alteration or change.

2. The first of these observations is that though the laws of thermodynamics appear to be inviolable, on a basic level the energy of gravitation does not appear to follow these principles in any strict sense. Gravity systems appear continuous and unending for the life of the body of the source of gravitation. This energy appears never to diminish to any significant level.

3. The only known mechanism for the production of chemical elements occur in the physical fusion processes inside of stars. We can speculate and hypothesize on many other alternative systems for the production of matter, but scientifically speaking we can only isolate one general set of pathways for that production, and this set of pathways, as found in our own sun, appear to be ubiquitous and all pervasive in the universe "as far as the eye can see."

4. Stars as solar furnaces appear to live, on average, for a very long time, and hence they appear to be quite stable and long-lived even though such life-spans are contraindicated by their size. In fact, the larger the star system, the shorter its expected life-trajectory, the smaller the size, the longer lived and more stable it is expected to be. The finite energy stores in their mass cannot explain the long term dynamics of heat and energy production of such systems unless unknown mechanisms can be invoked.

Physical Systems

by Hugh M. Lewis