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!
