53
MAGNETIC
RECIPROCITIES: If, to expand on the above hypothesis of interplanetary
equilibrium, we assume that our planet exists in a magnetically antithetical
relationship to the sun, which is literally hundreds of times bigger than the
earth, then it is difficult for us not to assume the core of the former to be
radically different from the core of the latter, so that the innermost parts of
the respective bodies signify a kind of north/south pole antithesis which makes
possible a magnetic reciprocity between them.
At present we know next-to-nothing about the innermost regions of
planets and stars, although it has long been a general hypothesis that the core
of the former is likely to be different from the core of the latter. Planets, it is assumed, have a hard core
while stars have a soft one, and, at face value, this does seem to be the most
sensible theory.
However, my own theory is at present
inclined to the contrary assumption - namely that planets have a comparatively
soft core and stars, by contrast, a hard one, so that the external reality of
both kinds of phenomena may be presumed to exist in an antithetical
relationship to their internal reality.
Thus the earth would seem to be burning up inside, in its innermost
core, while the sun's innermost core is producing the energy and providing the
material upon which the outer parts burn.
The sun would therefore be burning with a positive energy, i.e. one
generated from its innermost core, and the earth, by contrast, with a negative
energy, or one dependent upon the materials lying closest to hand, upon which
it sustains itself.
Thus a magnetic reciprocity would be established between them, by dint
of the nature of their respective types of energy.
Furthermore it would seem that if, by
circling the sun, the earth exists in an antithetical relationship to it, then
the moon, which circles the earth, must of necessity exist in a like
relationship to the earth, and one, moreover, which presupposes a natural
affinity with the sun. Here again my
hypothesis begs to differ from the general assumption relating to the nature of
the moon vis-à-vis the sun. For instead
of being antithetical to the sun, I would argue that the moon is a kind of dead
sun, a weak and negative sun of the night which shines with a borrowed light
(from the earth), and the hard core of which forms a positive antithesis to the
earth's soft one. Now just as I argue
that the earth is largely prevented from being sucked-in to the sun by the
competitive magnetic forces being exerted by various other stars in the Galaxy,
many of which are far greater than the sun and may be presumed to be in
perpetual struggle with one another for mastery over particular planets, so it
is logical for me to contend that the moon is prevented from being sucked-in to
the earth by the competitive magnetic forces being exerted by various other
planets in the Solar System, which likewise struggle with one another for
mastery over particular moons and, by attracting the earth's moon to themselves,
keep it in motion around the earth.
From this hypothesis it should follow that,
just as the largest stars in the Galaxy will have the most number of circling
planets, so the largest planets in the Solar System will have the most number
of circling moons - a contention which can, in fact, be confirmed by an
investigation of the relative number of moons attaching to each of the
planets. Jupiter, the
largest planet, has twelve moons, three more than Saturn, which is the next
largest. Then comes Uranus with
its five moons,
Consequently, there can be little doubt
that planets struggle with one another for moons and possess a number of moons
in accordance with their capacity to support them. Likewise, it should follow that stars
struggle with one another for planets and possess planets in accordance with
their supportive capacity. Hence the
largest stars should possess either the largest or the most number of planets
and thus form the greatest solar systems, the greatest of all presumably being
positioned midway between the innermost and outermost stars of the Galaxy, i.e.
in a galactic position corresponding to the solar-system positions of the
largest planets, rather than actually nearest to the governing star. For it is likely that the actual nucleus of
the Galaxy, about which we know absolutely nothing, possesses a star, or ruling
body, of such magnitude as to govern not merely a solar system peculiar to itself
but, additionally, the courses of the 100,000 million-odd stars which revolve
around it in the fulfilment of their respective 'cosmic years'.
Thus we find ourselves confronted by the
possibility of a three-way system of reciprocal magnetic influence. We have the central star of the Galaxy which,
whatever its actual nature, dictates the paths of individual stars; we have the
stars, which dictate the paths of individual planets; and finally we have the
planets, which dictate the paths of individual moons. A sun, we have assumed, forms the main
positive influence in a given solar system, the planets, drawn into circulation
around that sun, being comparatively negative.
However, the planets 'take revenge', so to speak, upon their sun by
dictating the paths that moons are to take around them
in a given solar system. For we must
assume that, although the planets are largely negative in relation to their
moons, their negativity is nevertheless far more powerful than the weak positivity of the moons' hard core. Now just as a large magnet with a south pole
will draw a smaller north-pole magnet towards itself, so the planets are able
to govern the orbits of individual moons.
As an afterthought, I should like to point
out the similarity of these cosmic speculations with those of Newton and,
conversely, their dissimilarity from Einstein's. For, as we know, Newton based his work on the
hypothesis of a magnetically-conditioned interplanetary equilibrium which gave
central power to the sun in determining the orbital inclinations of the various
planets in the Solar System. Einstein,
by contrast, developed the theory that space is curved and that all the planets
really do is to follow the natural curves mapped out for them, as it were, by
the curvilinear nature of space itself.
The sun, in other words, was not recognized by Einstein as the
all-important magnetic force it had been to Newton. Consequently, Einstein did much to
revolutionize the position of scientific speculation in this respect, causing
quite a stir in the world of early twentieth-century Western science, and
largely because he brought what might be described as an Eastern standpoint to
a world which, traditionally, had been dominated by force and mass in a kind of
open-society deference to cosmic fact.
Now this is not to say that force and mass
was incorrect or a misconception of what literally took place in the
Universe. But it was bound to be
challenged sooner or later by a standpoint that scorned the brute facts of the
matter in favour of a convenient fiction which would enable man, from that time
onwards, to perceive the workings of the Universe through a mystical veil, as
it were, in deference to transcendental criteria and a refusal, in consequence,
to recognize brute reality.
Such an anti-imperialist and
anti-autocratic concept as curved space surely has much to recommend it to the
future! But intellectual honesty compels
me to say that Newton was literally right and Einstein literally wrong, even though
his wrongness transpires to being an expedient 'right' so far as the future is
concerned, and not one that I, despite the apparent Newtonian bias of this
essay, would seriously wish to undermine.
Certainly, I do not share Spengler's view in
this matter which, however true it may be in relation to the brute facts of the
Universe, can only obstruct evolutionary progress by prolonging the kind of
system and mentality which the Nazis were subsequently to bring to a head in
unequivocal deference precisely to those autocratic and imperialistic tendencies
which spring from an enslavement to such brute facts.
