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 pygmies, 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!
