Attraction = No Resistance
It occurred to nobody that the phenomena which were explained by "gravitation" or "attraction" on the one hand, and the phenomena of "weight" on the other hand, are totally different phenomena having nothing whatsoever in common. (P.D.Ouspensky)
If Newton had not used the word attraction in his admirable philosophy, everyone in our Academy would have opened his eyes to the light; but unfortunately he used in London a word to which an idea of ridicule was attached in Paris; and on that alone he was judged adversely. (Voltaire)
Orbital gravitation (G) and the occult mover forcing the apple to accelerate to the ground (g) are assumed to be the exact same force of attraction: “to draw towards”. The inherent nonsense of this idea bothered even Newton. That a force between two bodies could act this way "is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."1 It was this "absurdity" that led him to recant, “I frame no hypothesis” as to the actual cause of gravitation.
Nevertheless, he perpetuated the idea of attraction. And because it was Newton, and because of the Messianic thrust given to his system, we have been conditioned into readily accepting it. “An idea of ridicule” in the 17th century is common sense today. Case closed. The apple falls because the earth's gravitational force attracts it. Experiments have shown that two suspended bodies tend to converge slightly toward each other. And no barrier or shielding has ever stopped or even diminished this mysterious “action at a distance”. Nor has gravity's polar twin, levity, ever been witnessed (at least in a scientific environment).
But the whole concept of attraction is an interpretation, something we attach to the behavior to help us understand it. While we've had enormous success in describing and applying gravity's effects, understanding still eludes us. For descriptions, applications, words and symbols—regardless of their successes—are not explanations. To understand an effect you must know the cause.
As you may have guessed, there is another way to interpret this tendency “to draw towards” without employing attraction. And this interpretation, as you may also have guessed, is the key to an explanation.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we think of attraction as the breakdown of resistance. For instance, there are certain varieties of animals and insects that normally exhibit an exaggerated apathy or even resistance toward the opposite sex of their species. I've seen horses act this way and perhaps some humans do this also. But when some natural event intrudes or some unexpected change of behavior—such as the occurrence of mating season—then this resistance may be temporarily broken down until it collapses altogether. Is it attraction or the breakdown of resistance due to some unforeseen intervention?
Semantically it makes little difference. But if we think of gravitation this way, then it becomes much simpler to explain it. It also allows us to easily overcome this objection to the power of an omni-directional, all-pervading force of resistance:
If space is full of fields of force, it will follow that at every point in space there are infinite forces impinging from every side upon any piece of matter situated there; and consequently, since these forces will cancel out, none of them will act on that piece of matter at all.2
Collingwood's argument, that equal force fields coming from all directions would cancel themselves out may be true, but it is incomplete. For suppose the force stopped coming from one direction! If the force is no longer equal, then the body's inertia must be affected. The direction the force stopped coming from is the direction the body must now move toward since it is the area of least resistance. And what could stop this force from coming from a certain direction? Why another body of course. Einstein makes just this point:
In a consistent theory of relativity there can be no inertia relatively to "space", but only an inertia of masses relatively to one another.3
This means that although the cause may be space itself, the effect is relevant only between two or more relative masses. And when one body intrudes within the relative proximity of another body, the gravitational ether is no longer distributed equally (both bodies may claim this intrusion on one another). An etheric shadow exists at all times between both bodies. In a manner of speaking, the resistant force is equally distributed everywhere except between the two bodies. With this in mind, we can now show, with remarkable simplicity, how the nature of gravitation creates the illusion and collusion of attraction.
To repeat and to clarify: the gravitational ether is a resistant potential which is an accumulative effect coming from every atomic event in the rest of the universe. It gets strength only in proportion to the distance it travels; i.e., space and time. For all intents and purposes, it is space and time itself, thus it is isotropic and homogenous: every point in space is subject to this effect coming equally from every direction. And its form is a direct reflection of its source: the wave phenomena, the essence of all reality. Here's how it works:
1. If one body (A) is in the proximity of another body (B), then the ether is intercepted from the direction of the intruding body (see fig. 8).
2. The intrusion of one body on another creates an etheric shadow or void. This is the area of least resistance. And because of the principle of least resistance, both bodies must accelerate toward this void ("Nature abhors a vacuum").
3. The mass, the density and the constitutional elements of each body would combine to determine the reciprocal "conditioning" that manifests between matter and space ("Matter tells space how to curve and space tells matter how to move").
If body A has 5.5 times the density of water, as the earth's average density has; and body B has 3.3 times the density of water, as the moon's average density has, then the reciprocal conditioning would cause the following:
1. The earth would produce a higher degree of curvature or distortion (less resistance) in the moon's immediate space in line with the earth.
2. The moon, less massive, less dense, would produce less curvature (more resistance) in the earth's immediate space in line with the moon.
3. Thus each body will accelerate towards this mutual line of resistance in proportion to its mass-density and local space-time curvature.
It should now be apparent how the diminishing and eventual collapse of resistance can appear as attraction. It should also be apparent why a satellite like the moon will continually orbit the earth. For wherever it appears in orbit, the line of least resistance (which is also the line of most space-time curvature) will necessarily follow between it and the earth.
The tides are explained as before but without the concept of attraction. The near tide (T1) is least resistance (replacing most attraction), while the opposite tide (T2) is most resistance (replacing least attraction). And we can now turn our attention to weight and begin to see why it becomes the single-most important factor in recognizing the method or mechanism of our universe.
The radius of the moon is approximately 27.25% of the radius of earth. The outward acceleration of expanding surfaces must correspond to this proportion. That is, to maintain the proportion in size that we observe, the surface acceleration must be 27.25% of planet earth's. If acceleration from atomic expansion were alone responsible for weight, then a 100-pound object on earth would weigh 27.25 pounds on the moon. Astronauts have shown, however, that it would weigh 16.6 pounds, or 1/6th as much.
But this book is a testimony to the fact that weight and all effects of gravitation and inertia are bi-polar effects; effects that have their origin in the two and only two forces in and of nature (the so-called four forces of today being only effects). And by a remarkable coincidence, the disparity in the object's weight corresponds almost exactly to the disparity in density between the moon and the earth. When this 3.3 to 5.5 correlation is factored in, the weight of the object would approximate 16.6 pounds. Considering the haphazard way of determining average densities and masses of such objects, “this is indeed amazing.”
Weight, then, is the boundary interaction between mass-energy acceleration and space-time curvature: THE MASC OF GOD. Said more succinctly, weight is our relationship between existence and resistance. Weight also identifies the relationship between its recipient and “the rest of the universe.”