From
Gravity to Curved Space
BRIAN: If I understand
you correctly, the Universe began with explosions of gas that gave rise to the
proton-proton reactions of stars and only formed itself into galaxies when some
of those stars, evidently smaller and weaker than others, cooled to the point
of becoming partly material, and thus were attracted by the larger subatomic
stars on account of their atomic constitution.
SHANE: Precisely! As soon as the smaller stars began to harden
into planets, the everywhichway divergence of stars
that had hitherto prevailed in the Universe was halted, because the larger
stars now found themselves competing for planets in a mutual attraction that
kept them pinned, as it were, to circumscribed cosmic bounds.
BRIAN: So stars and
planets weren't born simultaneously.
SHANE: No, of course
not! A planet presupposes a certain
atomic integrity and cannot arrive at such an integrity
without having first existed on the purely or predominantly subatomic level of
a star. The subatomic
leads to the atomic, so planets would have evolved somewhat later than stars,
originally being small stars that were destined to cool, at least in part, into
matter.
BRIAN: I agree when you
say 'at least in part'. For the earth is itself a star in the process of cooling, one that
possesses a subatomic core which is encased within an atomic crust. It is divided, so to speak, between the
subatomic and the atomic.
SHANE: One could
alternatively describe it as being somewhere in-between a star and a moon,
since a moon is a dead star, or a star which has completely cooled. That, I think, would constitute the
definitive definition of a planet.
BRIAN: Yet why is it
that planets revolve around the sun?
What is it about these cooling stars that brought the everywhichway divergence of stars in general to a halt, and
thus created the basis of a galactic integrity?
SHANE: Precisely the
fact that they were and remain partly atomic, and so became attracted to the
nearest stars. For protons attract
electrons, and since there were plenty of electrons in the atomic integrity of
the earth's crust it followed that, in conjunction with other planets, the
earth would be attracted to the nearest 'anarchic' star. What prevented the earth from being sucked-in
to the sun, as we may now call the star in question, was the fact that it
wasn't entirely atomic but contained a large subatomic core which reacted
against the sun's attractive force, and thereby established a tension the
nature of which was to contribute towards its revolution around the sun. For whilst one part of the
planet was attracted to the sun, the other part reacted against it, while
simultaneously attracting the earth's atomic crust. This tension between attraction and
repellence is precisely what caused our planet, and by implication other nearby
planets, to revolve around the sun, and it keeps the earth intact. For it is quite probable that the subatomic
core would exert a stronger attractive influence on the crust, were it not
balanced-out by the competing attraction of the sun.
BRIAN: An equilibrium of mutually attractive and repellent
tensions! But does this also explain the
revolution of the moon around the earth?
SHANE: Indeed it does,
since the atomic relativity of the moon is attracted by the subatomic
absolutism of the earth's core while simultaneously being repelled by the
atomic relativity of its crust - the protons in each of these relativities
chiefly being responsible for the repelling.
Yet the moon is also attracted by the subatomic absolutism of the sun
and revolves around the earth more in consequence of the competition between
core and sun than in response to any repellent influence solely stemming from
the earth's crust.
BRIAN: In other words,
it is torn between two mutually exclusive attractions.
SHANE: Just as the
earth's crust is torn between the mutually exclusive attractions of its own
core and the sun, and the planet is thereby kept spinning on its axis around
the sun, which is unable to pull the crust into itself from without ... for the
simple reason that the earth's core is exerting a similar attraction on it from
within.
BRIAN: And yet, what
about the sun - what is there that keeps it revolving around the central star
of the Galaxy?
SHANE: Certainly not
the fact that the central star attracts the sun to itself, but, rather,
because, being large and powerful, it attracts the numerous planets which
revolve around smaller stars and would probably succeed in sucking them into
itself, were it not for the fact that these smaller stars, one to each solar
system, exert an attractive influence of their own on the planets as well.
BRIAN: So just as a
moon is kept in revolution around a planet because of the competing attractions
of core and sun, and a planet is likewise kept in revolution around a sun, so a
peripheral star is kept in rotation around the central star of the Galaxy
because of their mutually exclusive interest in planets and moons.
SHANE: That must be
approximately correct. And it should
mean that part of the reason why a planet revolves around a sun is that the
more distant central star of the Galaxy also exerts an attractive influence on
it, an influence which is counterweighted, however, by the small star at the
heart of any given solar system, as well, of course, as by its own subatomic
core.
BRIAN:
So the central star in each galaxy and the small peripheral stars are
fundamentally the same - at least in constitution, if not in size and strength.
SHANE: Yes, for
anything that is subatomic can only be such on approximately identical terms,
i.e. as implying some degree of proton-proton reaction. The central star, from which it appears the
smaller ones emerged, would be no less subatomic than the others. Only with planets does evolution attain to an
atomic integrity.
BRIAN: And it is this integrity, this matter, that a sun attracts
to itself.
SHANE: Yes, certainly
not the electrons by themselves! For
electrons cannot be divorced from matter at such an early stage of evolution as
planetary formations. Rock does not burn,
because the atomic integrity of such matter is too densely proton-packed. It was once molten lava that cooled and
hardened into rock, from which state it cannot return to fire again, having
already burnt itself out. But it can be
attracted, in a kind of magnetic reciprocity, by the subatomic absolute, which
exerts a force on its mass.
BRIAN: Here you are
speaking of gravity.
SHANE: True, and the
gravitational force exerted by the subatomic absolute acts as though that
absolute would like to reclaim the mass, derived from its partial cooling, back
into itself out of a wilful desire to prevent further evolution.
BRIAN: But why, if the
sun attracts this mass to itself, does a stone return to earth when thrown into
the air instead of continuing in the sun's direction, from which an attractive
force is apparently all the time emanating?
SHANE: Precisely
because the earth's molten core also exerts an attractive force on the stone
which causes it to return to the surface, this force being closer to the stone
than the sun and therefore exerting more authority over it. And for that reason the earth's crust,
composed of rocks and mineral formations, is prevented from being sucked-in to
the sun; though, because an attractive force still emanates from it, the
planet, caught in a tug-of-war between core and sun, not to mention sun and
central star, is obliged to revolve around it.
BRIAN: Granted that the
sun acts as a kind of magnet on the earth's crust, what happens as regards,
say, wood and vegetables?
SHANE: They are also
attracted by the sun, if in a heliotropic rather than
a magnetic way, since no magnet has ever been made out of wood or vegetable
life! The sun doesn't attract plants to
the degree it attracts rock or crystal formations, though some attraction does
in fact occur, else they would be unable to grow. Indeed, were there not a simultaneous
attraction from the earth's core, they wouldn't grow anyway, since unable to
remain rooted. For a plant's growth
isn't just upwards into air; it is also downwards into soil, and we may believe
that the roots are encouraged to grow by the earth's core and the stalk, in
contrast, by the sun, so that a plant grows simultaneously downwards and
upwards, is the result of a tension of competing gravitational forces which, at
some point in any particular plant's growth, are obliged to call it quits, so
to speak, and leave the plant as testimony to a gravitational compromise
between the competing attractions. Even
a sunflower, which is taller than other flowers and thereby suggests a bias
towards the sun, has roots that go down deeply into the soil and thus testify
to the simultaneous competing influence of the earth's core. Even animals and men are subject to this
tension of gravitational forces between the two main subatomic protagonists in
the Solar System.
BRIAN: But they don't
possess roots that go down into the soil.
SHANE: Not
literally! But, then, legs are root
equivalents in autonomous life forms and lead, particularly in the case of Homo sapiens, to an
upright, stalk-like entity that we call the torso, which in turn leads to what
may be regarded as a blossom equivalent - namely the head. Considered biologically, man is a kind of
walking plant, and, believe me, he wouldn't walk long on this planet's surface
were he not subject, like a plant, to the attractive force of the earth's
subatomic core! He would be more like a
spaceman, gliding about in space, and always at the risk, if he ventured too
far from the earth's gravitational field, of being sucked-in to the sun.
BRIAN: So our stability
is to some extent determined by the competing gravitational forces of sun and
core.
SHANE: Yes. And that applies to every life form on this
planet, from a tiny plant to a huge elephant.
It also determines, in some measure, our height and weight.
BRIAN: You mean a
person's height is determined, in part, by the competing attractive forces
simultaneously at work on him from opposite directions?
SHANE: Only from a
species point of view, since individual variations are primarily determined by
hereditary factors. But as weight is
generally proportionate to height, so height is dependent on the particular
tension of competing subatomic forces that simultaneously exert themselves on the world.
Were there less attraction from below, in the earth's core, we would
probably be a good deal taller, as a species, than we generally are. In the case of pigmies, however, it will be
found, I think, that they are shorter in height than the average of humanity
because more subject to the attractive force of the earth's core than to that
of the sun, and largely on account of the fact that they live in jungle regions
which, while not totally shutting out the latter's attractive force, somewhat
weaken it by dint of the density of plant life to be found there. So they grow less tall than those of us
accustomed to regular exposure to the sun.
BRIAN: A theory which
should imply that the tallest men, by contrast, will live in regions of the
world most exposed to the sun, like the
SHANE: Indeed, and I
think you will find that Arabs are taller, on average, than those of us who
live in temperate regions.
BRIAN: Getting back to
the attractive force which the subatomic absolute exerts on matter, we must distinguish, I take it, between this matter and its electron
content. In other words, the attraction
is primarily on matter rather than on the electrons inside it.
SHANE: Absolutely! And the more dense the matter, the more
tightly proton-packed it is, the stronger is the attraction of the subatomic
upon it, as in the case of rocks and mineral formations generally.
BRIAN: So there could
be no question of free electrons, of transcendent spirit, being attracted by,
say, the sun, in the event of transcendence occurring on earth.
SHANE: None whatsoever,
because the distinction between the subatomic and the supra-atomic is absolute,
and no attraction can possibly occur between absolutes. It would be absurd to suppose that, in
escaping from the atomic constraint of new-brain matter at the culmination of
millennial evolution, transcendent spirit would straightaway be attracted by
the sun and eventually merge into it.
The sun would be the last thing, metaphorically speaking, that pure
spirit would be attracted by, since its sole predilection would be to converge
towards other transcendences, other globes of pure spirit, and expand into
larger wholes in consequence, a process that, repeated possibly millions of
times throughout the course of supra-atomic evolution, would eventually
culminate in a definitive globe of pure spirit - namely, the Omega Point, as
defined by Teilhard de Chardin
in terms of the spiritual culmination of evolution. Now just suppose, for the sake of argument,
that all transcendences, from whichever part of the Universe, were attracted to
the nearest stars instead of to one another - what do you suppose would happen?
BRIAN: Provided enough
large transcendences entered a star, the proton-proton
reactions of the subatomic would be confronted by electron-electron attractions
of the supra-atomic, which could lead to its being elevated above pure soul
into matter, becoming, in the process, akin to a planet with some degree of
atomic integrity.
SHANE: In theory. But, in practice, I rather doubt it! For stars only became planets through
cooling, and matter was thus created, on its most rudimentary level, from a
subatomic base, not through a sudden fusion of protons with free electrons
entering the subatomic from without! No,
pure spirit would never be attracted by the stars, not even slightly. Rather, it would fulfil its own destiny in
loyalty to the divine principles of a convergence and expansion of separate
transcendences towards total unity.
BRIAN: Then matter is
only attracted by the subatomic so long as it is naturalistic and, as it were,
rooted in the Diabolic Alpha.
SHANE: Yes, as soon as
spirit begins to get the upper hand over soul, as it will do in man at a
relatively advanced stage of his evolution, then life aspires towards the
Divine Omega, towards transcendence, even if only relatively so at first, as in
Christianity, rather than with absolute intent.
Atomic, or dualistic, man, who is part mundane and part transcendental,
physically stemming from the Diabolic Alpha but psychically aspiring towards
the Divine Omega, is still to a certain extent attracted by the subatomic. But transcendental man, while possessing a
natural body, will exclusively turn towards the Divine Omega, that is to say,
towards creating the Supernatural, and thus cease to affirm a link with the
Creator. He will be set on course for
the post-Human Millennium and, hence, the practical implementation of an
exclusively omega-oriented aspiration through the supersession
of man by largely artificial, or post-human life forms, the second and last of
which, namely the Superbeings, will have no
connection with the Diabolic Alpha whatsoever!
BRIAN: Thus evolution
proceeds from pure soul to matter, and from matter to pure spirit, not back, as
some people seem to imagine, into pure soul.
SHANE: Correct! There would be no logic or sense to life if
evolution were destined to return to the subatomic after it had attained to the
atomic, instead of progressing to the supra-atomic. There can be no greater distinction than that
between Hell and Heaven! We are set on
course for Heaven, if from a kind of purgatorial compromise in the atomic.
BRIAN: And this despite the diabolical workings of the physical
cosmos, in which the law of gravity holds sway and planets are accordingly
obliged to rotate around suns.
SHANE: To be sure! A literal knowledge of how the physical
cosmos works is the prerogative of people like us, who are beyond the confines
of Western civilization, with its petty-bourgeois transcendentalism demanding a
subjective, quasi-mystical interpretation of how it works, as exemplified by
the Einsteinian concept of curved space. Such a civilization must
kow-tow to transcendental sensibilities, and thus uphold a
quasi-mystical interpretation at the expense of force and mass. It will claim that
BRIAN: But won't
proletarian civilization uphold a similar if not more radical quasi-mystical
interpretation of how the Cosmos works, in due course?
SHANE: Oh yes,
absolutely! But, in the meantime,
proletarian states will prefer the literal, objective 'truth' about the
physical universe, since that accords with their materialistic integrity beyond
the boundaries of bourgeois/proletarian civilization, which isn't, after all,
the ultimate civilization but only a stage on the evolutionary road to something
higher - namely, proletarian civilization.
Marxist states, as upholders of dialectical materialism, certainly won't
venture into the realm of petty-bourgeois transcendentalism, but will remain
partial to Newtonian explanations of the Cosmos. I, too, am partial to such explanations, as
this dialogue should indicate, but only on a relative basis! For whilst it is useful for a proletarian
thinker to get to the bottom of how things really work and why, it is even more
useful to know why a quasi-mystical interpretation of such workings should be
endorsed, if not now then certainly in the future. Petty-bourgeois transcendentalism may be good
but, believe me, proletarian transcendentalism will be a good deal better! That I can assure you! In the meantime, let us exploit our status as
'barbarous' outsiders in order to put our more comprehensive knowledge of the
literal workings of the physical cosmos down on record once and for all!
BRIAN: I agree. But don't you think you exaggerate the
transcendental integrity of bourgeois/proletarian civilization, which, after
all, isn't absolute but decidedly relative?
I mean, Einstein may be de rigueur for the scientific avant-garde,
but
SHANE: You are right,
and consequently a literal explanation of how the Cosmos works would still find
sympathetic ears in the West, since the pagan root remains intact in a relative
civilization, and that allows not only the relatively uncivilized masses, but
the more conservative-thinking people to regard the Cosmos from a traditional
force/mass point-of-view, if they so desire.
Probably a majority of the aristocracy and the grand bourgeoisie would
be inclined to uphold a literal rather than a quasi-mystical view of the
Cosmos, since they don't live on the same plane, generally speaking, as the
petty bourgeoisie, particularly those who constitute the scientific
avant-garde. So while curved space may
be de
rigueur for petty-bourgeois pace setters, force-and-mass cannot be outlawed,
since there will be those who, on class or religious grounds, relate more to a
literal explanation of how the Cosmos works than to a quasi-mystical one
largely conducted, one suspects, in the interests of transcendental
complacency. For this reason, anyone who
chooses to walk into a book shop and buy the works of
BRIAN: Ah, how
absolutely right you are!
