“There is always another way to say something that doesn’t look like the way you said it before” —–Richard Feynman [p.13, Ref.#39]

Well, if you have read this far into this series of essays, then you probably realize that the epo-lattice in Dr. Simhony’s model is supposed to be “stiffer than a diamond”;  while, at the same time, it’s also “elastic” — meaning that it will bend a little bit under stress.  But only a very little bit, because it’s “stiffer than a diamond.”

Note:  there is no contradiction in the idea that something can be both “stiff” and “elastic”:  many things are:  for example, billiard-balls:  though “stiff”, they collide and then bounce apart, because they are also “elastic.”  Likewise, a BARN-DOOR is obviously “stiff”, but if you throw a rock at it, then the rock will bounce back, because the door will deform slightly, and then bounce back, so the rock, too, bounces back:  the door is “elastic.”

Dr. Simhony says that the epo-lattice causes gravity to happen {!!} because every bit of “ordinary” matter in our universe, mainly protons + neutrons, causes the epo-lattice at and near its own location to expand a little bit, so that some of that epola-stuff is pushed out of some of the space which it had been occupying.  So there is a “push-back” force, as epola-stuff “tries” to reoccupy the space which the “ordinary” stuff pushed it out of.  Naturally, if there is a large quantity of “ordinary” stuff in a volume of space, such as in the volume which a moon or planet occupies, then there will be a large expansion of the epola-stuff in that volume of space.

Because all epola-elements are connected to each other by electric and/or magnetic forces, this means that the epo-lattice between a moon and a planet also expands, so it’s slightly less dense than the epo-lattice which surrounds both objects:  the surrounding epo-lattice pushes back, and this “push-back” is what we experience as gravity.

That (above) is a short explanation re what causes gravity:  an even shorter explanation is this:

      ===>> GRAVITY  DOESN’T  PULL —– IT  PUSHES  !!!  <<===

It pushes, because the epola-stuff which surrounds two objects in space is slightly more dense than the epola-stuff between them.  So the objects “gravitate” toward each other.  One needs a bit of creative imagination to “get” why this explanation is probably true, and I don’t want to argue details:  to me, this explanation seems obvious.  Though I know (from arguing with others) that others do not agree.  So be it:  whatever:  it’s all good.


So:  how does the concept of “local gravity” fit in here ??

Dr. Sternglass hypothesizes that the concept of local gravity applies to the “cosmological systems” (cosmo.systs, [p.234, Ref.#1]) in his model, which are a totally different kind of stuff than the “ordinary” stuff which physicists usually study:  because they existed before the big bang started, before any protons or neutrons existed.  According to Sternglass’s model, protons + neutrons started their existence —( i.e., were “BORN” !! )— at the start of the “Big Bang.”

One can call the “cosmological systems” in Sternglass’s model  “Sternglass cosmo.systs” — because they are basic to the model.

He says that the “inner small space” [p.223, Ref.#1] inside a small cosmo.syst experiences a larger local gravity than that inside a large cosmo.syst,  and that the strength of this increased local gravity is inversely proportional to the system’s radius.  One needs to read the book [Ref.#1] to “get” why this might be true:  even after > 5 years of intense study of the book, I’m still getting more info from it, info which is new to me:  and it’s a short book:  < 300 pages:  one purpose of this series of essays is to inspire folks to want to read Sternglass’s Before the Big Bang [Ref.#1], and also to read about Simhony’s model [Refs. #2 + 2a], which is totally available on the internet.

As Sternglass was developing details re the process by which “cosmological systems” in his model divided in half, again + again + again, before the big bang, {a process which I call “the count-down to the big bang”}, it seemed like the value of the “gravitational constant” [“G”] in his calculations would “increase … at every division” [p.222, Ref.#1].  Knowing that this was a revolutionary idea, with no equivalent in the “standard” model, he needed to think, long and hard, re the possibility that it might actually be true.

He says that,  “after much thought, I realized that an increase in the strength of gravity was only a localized change in the curvature of space in Einstein’s theory, and that the value of G for the universe as a whole could remain constant” [p.222, Ref.#1].

Plus:  he had some help from a colleague, Dr. Lloyd Motz, who had already looked at the same idea:  “In fact, Lloyd Motz had worked out a model for the electron based on exactly such a large local strength of the gravitational force in his 1962 paper [Ref.#28]” [p.222, Ref.#1].  And Einstein, too, had thought about this possibility:

“Einstein had considered a local gravitational or space-curvature force strong enough to keep the electron stable in a paper he presented at a meeting of the Prussian Academy of Science in 1919 … He and I had discussed this question at length when we met in Princeton in 1947 ” [p.222, Ref.#1].


In his “Table 1” [p.234, Ref.#1], Sternglass lists mass and size data for many of the differently-sized cosmo.systs [cosmological systems] in his model, starting with the original cosmo.syst, the “primeval atom” [(which once contained all the mass/energy in our universe, as difficult as that might be to comprehend)], and ending at what he calls “stage 27”, where there are zillions of tiny cosmo.systs, each of approx. the mass of 5 protons.  He says that, for each cosmo.syst, regardless of its mass or size, the radius is proportional to the square-root of the system’s mass.

The large cosmological systems share large spaces with zillions of epola-elements, while the tiny cosmo.systs at “stage 27” are just the right size to fit inside a single epola-cell [Refs. #2, #2a], each of which is defined by eight [8] epola-elements.

Because it’s an elastic substance, the epo-lattice expands in a way which is analogous to how Hooke’s law works for a spring with a weight hanging on it.  {If one needs to google “Hooke’s law” and study it, then one might want to do so at this time}  In any case, the concepts which work for “Hooke’s law” also work for the epo-lattice, and are as follows:

   (1)  FORCE ~ (lattice-expansion, length-wise);

   (2)  ENERGY ~ (lattice-expansion, length-wise), squared;

{ Note1:  the symbol  “~”  means  “is proportional to” }

{ Note2:  I say “length-wise”, because I’m talk’n about how the lattice expands in a 1-dimensional sense;  not, for example, how the volume of an epola-cell increases, which is obviously the CUBE of how its length increases … but I’m not talking about that:  I’m talking about how its length increases }

(2) above says that a Sternglass.cosmo.syst whose ENERGY content is 100x that of an other Sternglass.cosmo.syst will cause the epo-lattice to expand, length-wise, 10x as much as the less energetic system.  And the radius of such a system (the more energetic one) is also 10x that of the less-energetic system;  because, as already mentioned, the radius of every Sternglass.cosmo.syst is proportional to the square root of its mass, and therefore also proportional to the square root of its energy content.  Because the radius of the larger system is 10x as long as that of the smaller system, it encloses approximately 1000x as many epola-cells.  So the amount of length-wise expansion of a larger system is, per epola-cell, less that that of a smaller system.

In other words:  even though a larger system causes the epo-lattice to expand more than a smaller system, this expansion is less, per epola-cell, than for the smaller system.

Meanwhile, (1) above says that the FORCE is proportional to the amount of lattice-expansion, length-wise.  So the force, per epola-cell, is also less for a large system than for a small one.  As already mentioned, the force due to the inward push-back force from expanded epola-cells is what we experience as “gravity.”

That is a short explanation for why the “local gravity” inside small systems is greater than that inside large systems.



Many physics books mention the fact that the electrical forces which physicists study are more than 10^(37) times greater than the gravitational forces.  This is a humongous factor:  10^(37) = 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000;  and virtually all of the books present this known fact as one of the outstanding current mysteries of this complex and competitive field of study,  implying that any scientist (or team of scientists) who can successfully explain why the electric force is so much stronger than the gravitic force would become eligible for a Nobel prize nomination.

Well, in my opinion, Sternglass would have been eligible for such a nomination, because, in my opinion, his model successfully explains this “mystery.”

Sternglass says that:  “as the local strength of the space-curvature force increased with every step [in the “count-down to the big bang”], it would reach a value equal to the Coulomb force [i.e., the electrical force] when the mass [of the “cosmological-system”] was that of an electron … sufficient to hold the electron together in the face of the strong repulsion between its field-lines at their source” [p.222, Ref.#1].

Note1:  following Einstein, he says “space-curvature force” to mean “gravitational force”;

Note2:  Dr. Simhony uses the word “space” to describe the “epola” in his model:  i.e., the “epola” does not OCCUPY “space” — because it IS “space.”  So the “space-curvature” in Einstein’s model, and also in Sternglass’s model, is just simply the “curvature” or “warpage” or “bending” of a portion of the epo-lattice —– which happens wherever and whenever any “matter” is present.

Note3:  This is an example of what Dr. John Archibald Wheeler famously said regarding this:  “MATTER tells SPACE how to curve, while curved SPACE tells MATTER how to move.”

***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***        ***

Even Einstein was not able to visualize very well what’s happening with tiny objects, such as protons + neutrons.  I once read that he said something like:  “‘My general relativity theory is built on a solid foundation of rock and brick regarding what happens with large objects [galaxies and stars, etc.], but it’s built on a foundation of straw regarding tiny objects [protons and neutrons, etc.]'”  Einstein worked many years trying to find the “Holy Grail” of physics:  a sensible mathematical description regarding the behavior of all the objects in our universe, both large and small.  And he was never able to find it, though he tried until, literally, the day when he died:  he was “addicted to physics.”

{[ Hey, there are lots of worse things to be addicted to, right ?? ]}

Today many scientists  —(still “addicted to physics”)—  are still trying to find that rascally “Holy Grail.”  This is why Dr. Sternglass’s concept of, and description of, “local gravity” is significant:  because it clearly shows the elusive connection between the very large and the very tiny objects in our universe:  because his model describes a “countdown” scenario in which the very very largest object in our universe, i.e., the “primeval atom”, produces all the objects in our universe, large and tiny, by the simple trick of dividing in half, again + again + again.  And each and every time when a piece of the primeval atom divides in half, the “local gravity” inside the “inner space” of each of the two new pieces increases by a simple factor of the square-root of 2.

This is the connection between the very large and the very tiny which Einstein searched for during all those many years, and it’s also the connection which every physicist who wants to find a “theory of everything” or a “grand unification theory” is looking for.

This is why it’s significant:  the long search is over:  though I reckon that Sternglass’s model is not perfect, I also reckon that one might want to look at it long and hard, to see if one agrees that it might be able to answer some of the important questions (i.e., if it might help to solve some of the outstanding current mysteries) in this complex and competitive field of study.

Please not that Dr. Milo Wolf’s model [see CHAPTER 9] similarly helps show the connection between Einstein’s relativity theory, [re large and massive objects] and the standard model’s quantum field theory [re small and tiny objects].

“[Wolff’s] discovery (in 1986) that a Spherical Wave Structure of Matter deduced Doppler shifts … that correctly corresponded to the de Broglie Wavelength of matter {[which is one of the foundations of quantum field theory]} … within these same simple wave equations were the correct terms for the Frequency-Mass-Energy increases with Motion as deduced by Einstein’ Special Relativity … Thus for the first time finding a fundamental theoretical and mathematical unification of these two famous theories [i.e., quantum mechanics and relativity]”

The quote is from the internet-site at:

Sincerely,  Mark Creek-water Dorazio,  Ithaca, NY, USA,  11 FEB 2015

$$$$$$$$$$$ < END OF CHAPTER 10 > $$$$$$$$$$$




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on January 14, 2015 by .
%d bloggers like this: