This is the final chapter of the book.

The following topics are discussed:

• Relativity Theory (time and length)
  
• The speed of gravity propagation
• 11 Questions for reader feedback.
• The big bang
• The Universe

                            vē 
        t = t0 * SQRT ( 1 - -- )                      (1)
                            cē 
                            vē 
        l = l0 * SQRT ( 1 - -- )                      (2)
                            cē 

                            vē 
        m = m0 / SQRT ( 1 - -- )                      (3)
                            cē 

Test 1 of program 3OBJECTS shows that the revolution time of a planet decreases when the speed of the central body i.e. the Sun, around which this planets rotates, increases. This effect is independent of the speed of light c meaning that the increase of the revolution time cannot be described with equation 1.

Test 2 and Test 10 of program 2OBJECTS show what happens when two objects approach each other.
Test 2 assumes that gravity propagation works instantaneous. Test 10 assumes that gravity is propagated with the speed of light.
Test 2 shows that the speed of the two objects increases when they approach each other. Test 10 compared with test 2 shows that the increase is less. This is because the influence (gravity) that each body "feels" now, originates from a distance further away than the true distance. This influence is less. As a result the speed will be less. Overall this is not in agreement with equation 1.

Thought experiment 2 shows that length observed can increase and decrease. This is not in agreement with equation 2.

The central theme of this book is that gravity does not act instantaneous, but has a speed. Light behaves the same, it also does not act instantaneous and also has a speed. The central questions is what is the speed of gravity propagation. Is this speed equal to the speed of light c, yes or no.

Accordingly to the relativity theory no object can move faster than the speed of light. (See Literature 7 page 34 ) Accordingly to that same article space can have a speed far greater than the speed of light. Accordingly to the astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington: Gravity waves propagate at the speed of thought. (See Literature 28 and Literature 39) Also (See Literature 28) no instrument built so far has been sensitive enough to detect gravity waves directly.

Gravity consists of gravitons and light of photons.

Literature 7 page 223 expresses the expectation that both waves (of light and gravity) have the same speed.

In my opinion the main reason that the speed of photons and gravitons is the same is because of unification i.e. it is an assumption to make the reality simple.
As far as I know there exists not any real proof that both are equal. No one has done any test or any observation that measures the speed of gravity propagation.

The reason why I have the opinion that the speed of gravity propagation is much greater than the speed of light, is not so much the current (forward) movement of the planet Mercury, but the movement in many centuries i.e. one complete revolution of the Sun in our Galaxy.

I'm almost certain that the speed of gravity is not equal to the speed light at least 10 times as much, but what its real value is, I do not know.

As a result what we "feel" and what we see is not the same.

Readers of this book are kindly requested to answer the following 11 questions:

1. Which proof exists that the speed of gravity propagation is equal to the speed of light.
2. What are the current values of the three angles of 531, 43 and 574 arc sec that describes the forward movement of Mercury and how accurate do we know those values.
3. Are those three values the same in the past and will they be the same in the future i.e. considering at least many centuries.
4. Is there any "proof" that the aphelion of Mercury follows a complete circle around the Sun. (The simulations of this book show the opposite except for very high values of the speed of gravity propagation).
5. What is the speed of our Galaxy Now.
6. Which is the angle between the direction of the movement of our Galaxy and the direction of the Sun Now.
7. Which is the angle between the direction of the Sun and the long axis of Mercury.
8. Do we have to take the Big Bang into account in a simulation of Mercury If the answer is No then:
   are there simulations which require that we take the Big Bang into account.
9. Do we have to take dark matter into account in a simulation of Mercury.
10. Did ever, anyone, try to simulate the movement of Mercury using the relativity equations over a period of many centuries.
11. How round (Oblateness) is the Sun (effective radius).

The following figure shows the angles requested in the questions 5, 6 and 7. FIGURE.TXT 2.5 OUR GALAXY .. NOW

The answer on question 9 based on my argumentation in chapter PROVE is most probably no. In chapter PROVE, I show, based on a calculation of the rotation curve of a galaxy that there is no reason to assume that there exists large amounts of dark matter.

The concept of the Big Bang describes the Universe, starting with an explosion, which grows in size and which becomes larger and larger.

One of the main questions is will this growing continue forever, will it stop and maybe will the Universe eventually contract with the possibility that the whole cycle can be repeated.

One of the main parameters to answer this question is the total mass (or energy distribution) of the Universe (visible and non visible).

In the simulations, in order to prove the reality (See Chapter 5), the total mass of the Universe is required. In the simulations the growing in size of the Universe is not taken into account. How to do that and if this is required is still an open issue.

In my opinion the biggest problem with the Big Bang is the problem to describe the beginning i.e. a sudden explosion out of nothing. The uncertainty here is indefinite. A second problem is our position relative to the location of the origin of that explosion.

Our universe is approximate 20 billion years old. 20 billion years from now , assume a similar civilisation as us, will that civilisation (be able) decide that the universe is approximate 40 billion years old?

One of the main endeavours of mankind is to try to describe (understand and predict its behaviour of) the Universe as accurate as possible. The first question is are we capable to do that i.e. what is the uncertainty in this description. There is nothing wrong to agree that we are not capable to describe the reality accurately.

Some people describe the Universe as a balloon. I doubt such a construct.

Other people are of the opinion that there are many Universes. Again I doubt such opinions. If there are many universes then you should be able to identify where one Universe ends and an other Universe begins. If you cannot than this concept does not make sense. There is only one Universe i.e. the reality.

Are there now other civilisations like us in this Universe? One thing is for sure and that is, because we exist, this is possible. I expect this is highly probable.

In my opinion the Universe is much larger and older then we think. I'm even of the opinion that the Universe indefinite wide and existed always. As such there is no beginning and no end.

The total physical complexity is finite.

One of the most important issues of sciences is to describe the reality as accurate as possible.

In my opinion at any instant the total universe is completely unique and can not be described by words and or physical laws accurately. The universe can also not be simulated. Only some phenomena can be described mathematically i.e. by physical laws and then even not very accurately.

One of the most "important" laws is Newton's Law. This law describes the reality to a large extend. One of the first improvements should be that this law (in its simplest form) is not valid within the radius of the masses. The second improvement should be that it not describes the surfaces (and density distributions) of the masses.
The third it does not describe if the speed of gravity has to be included nor what this value is. The last is the major topic of this book.

There are two additional questions:

1. For some there are local and global physical laws.
2. For others there is a question if the physical laws are constant in time.

The major problem with those questions is what does one exactly mean by those questions i.e. were does local ends and global begins.

In my opinion there exists only one set of physical laws. (What they are I don't know) If those laws don't describe the reality accurate then they have to be improved. This could mean that they (some) are a function of place and time. But if that is the case then this should be formulated as such.

Perform thought experiment 7: THOUGHT7.TXT

For some this means that we are fully determined by physical laws and (as a consequence) that there is no free will.

This only moves the problem i.e. what are the physical laws, what "prove" exists that we are fully described by physical laws and what means determined (controlled?)

The computer simulations included in the book are deterministic i.e. every time when you run them they give the same result.
The same cannot be said of "us". We are not controlled by a computer program. As such we are not deterministic in the sense of a computer program.
Are we then deterministic by physical laws ? Again which are those physical laws. Is Newton's law included with or without the speed of gravity? I hope that some readers will write me what those physical laws are.

In my opinion we are neither deterministic nor not deterministic i.e. we are unique and have a free will.

Perform thought experiment 8 and "see" how electrons behave: THOUGHT8.TXT

Which times machines the same problem exists as with many other physical problems i.e. what does one exactly mean by this.

In my opinion one has to distinguish between two types of time machines: