textfiles/bbs/KEELYNET/GRAVITY/gravwave.asc

______________________________________________________________________________
|  File Name      : GRAVWAVE.ASC     |  Online Date     :  12/26/95          |
|  Contributed by : Jerry Decker     |  Dir Category    :  GRAVITY           |
|  From           : KeelyNet BBS     |  DataLine        :  (214) 324-3501    |
|           KeelyNet * PO BOX 870716 * Mesquite, Texas * USA * 75187         |
|        A FREE Alternative Sciences BBS sponsored by Vanguard Sciences      |
|              InterNet email keelynet@ix.netcom.com (Jerry Decker)          |
|      Files also available at Bill Beaty's http://www.eskimo.com/~billb     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
The following file is excerpted from the InterNet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rex@wolfe.net (Rex Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories

Subject: "gravity waves"

Date: 20 Dec 1995 08:44:58 GMT
Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C.

                                   "GRAVITY"

During the fortnight I was writing this chapter, there came the first public
reports of the tentative "discovery" of "gravity waves."

I remind you of the idea, as we have noticed before, that it is amazing that,
when the need for something is great enough, in this instance "gravity waves,"
lo and behold we "discover" them. It seems that the "things" we need to have
to support our theories turn up at just the right time surprisingly often.

Presumably, "gravity waves" will eventually furnish some answers to the
questions about the "nature of gravity" that have been present for some time.
Now I have nothing against the idea of theories per se; they are vitally
necessary for advancement. My criticism here is to be seen in the context of
our creations of 'things' to support theories. At any rate, this seems to be
to be a good example of the idea that:

     A question determines and brings about its answer just as the desired
     end shapes the nature of the kind of question asked. This is the way
     by which science synthetically creates that which it then 'discovers'
     out there in the universe (138, p. 7).

I am reminded of the Ptolemaic epicycles, (supposed) tremendously complicated
systems of planetary orbits that were necessary to explain the geocentric
theory of the solar system.  And "explain" it they did, to such an extent that
for untold generations men of "science" believed implicitly that the sun and
all the other planets revolved around the earth.

Of course, this theory was ultimately overborne by Copernicus and his true-to-
reality idea that the sun is the center of the solar system.

But during the previous hundreds of years everyone "knew" that the earth was
the center; it had been copiously "proved" by irrefutable scientific
reasoning. The need for believing that the earth was the center of the solar
system preceded the "existence" of epicycles; they were "discovered" to
"prove" the geocentric theory.

It is almost axiomatic that anything that one wants to believe strongly enough
can either be "proved" to him or that he can "prove" it to himself - "When I
believe it I'll see it."

So all these years we have not known what gravity IS (58, p. 268) (here's our
old linguistic pons asinorum again), even though we "know" there's such a
"thing" as "gravity."

So the 'climate of the scientific times' demanded that it was about time we
found out and <20> Presto! <20> "gravity waves" are "discovered." Not that this will
explain anything, anymore than light waves explain the existence of light, but
at least it will give us a feeling of finally getting a handle on "gravity."

You may remember that I summarized (p. xiv, Note 56) Ouspensky's "spiral
principle," which makes "gravity" unnecessary. Summarizing it in another way,
it is reasonable to conceive of everything in the universe, material bodies
(including "elementary particles"), and energy flows, vortexes, etc., in a
holistic way, as being part of the same "entity."

It seems reasonable to conceive that the universe, this entity, has one main
center of activity - the "core" of the Big Bang - around which all its parts
are congregated in cohesive ways that spring from the nature of the primordial
fire-ball. By the same token every point of the universe has its own, smaller
center which binds together even smaller points.

As far as we know, Sol is revolving around some point in Andromeda, and that
center is revolving around an even higher center and so on until the "core",
the Ultimate Center of the universe, is reached.

Some smaller centers, such as Sol, have planets revolving around them; still
smaller centers, such as Earth, Mars, Jupiter, etc., have moons revolving
around them.  These latter, in turn, have asteroids, rocks, etc., revolving
around them.

On the subatomic level we find much the same case, smaller "bodies" revolving
around larger ones. (Recall our discussion of all "bodies" being composed of
"frozen energy-flows"). Bear in mind, however, that "empty spaces," with their
energy-flows, are also real parts of the universe.

So "gravity" or whatever the mysterious force that is presumed to "attract"
bodies to one another is, also has to "attract" each bit of space to other
bits of space (that is if my above hypothesis is rejected).

For if the universal energy flows were disorganized or displaced then the
universe would surely collapse into chaos. So "gravity" then not only has to
"hold" material bodies in position, but also must "hold" space and energy-
flows in position!

I have never come across the idea expressed in the last two sentences, to my
knowledge, but it seems to me to be a logical step from the common idea of
"gravity"'s workings with material bodies.

Further, "gravity waves" presumably travel thru space, as light waves are said
to do, although I questioned that idea a few chapters ago. Up until now, as
far as I know, "gravity" has been presumed to he instantaneous in its
effects., i.e. its effects are everywhere, they never had to get anywhere,
which would have to involve a lapse of time.

Because, as we have seen before, it seems to be accepted that gravity, time,
and space came into existence simultaneously - Bronowski, for one, says that
gravity is "embedded" in space-time (16, p. 106).

It would seem to make as much sense to say that space "travels" (and of course
that possibility cannot be ruled out) as to say that "gravity" does.  But if
we go back to Ouspensky's idea of the universe as one of interconnected
spirals, there is no need to postulate a force such as "gravity," because all
"parts" of the universe are welded together, just as all parts of an apple,
say, are, to restate the main idea of this section.

Every "part" of the apple is connected to the core, just as every "part" of
the universe is connected to its core.

This "discovery of gravity waves" is based on careful measurement of the
shortened orbital period (four ten-thousandths of a second in four years) of a
pair of companion stars in Aquila, one of which is a rapidly rotating quasar.

The velocity of the stars around each other, 600,000 m.p.h., is high enough,
according to relativity theory, for gravity waves <20> if they exist <20> to have a
measurable effect; the gravity waves' drawing of energy from the stars would
theoretically cause their orbits to be shortened.

Astronomer Joseph Taylor said: "We don't claim to have detected gravitational
waves themselves, but simply proved they exist" (40). It is this statement
that I object to. The detection of the change of orbits could just as well be
"proof"  that these two particular stars are slowly spiraling toward their
common core or center of energy, as per Ouspensky's theory, as "proof" that
gravity waves exist.

The difference is - and it is all-impoprtant in our context - that in one case
the "proof"  demands creation of things, and in the other it does not. I
prefer, on the principle of parsimony and Occam's razor, the explanation that
does not require the creation of things.
--
Rex Smith, PhD - 206 Mt. Park Bd., D-202 - Issaquah, WA 98027
           Ph 206-392-6658
------------------------------------------------------------------------------