RETURN to Book 02 - Chapter 11 - Attraction and Repulsion
similar statements and the word "mass," when used, is assumed to mean an aggregate of states of motion of the substance but not the substance itself.
The tail of the comet which ever points away from the sun is supposedly one of the proofs of the theory that light repels.
If the head of the comet is its most solid part and its tail proportionately less solid as its distance from its head increases, and if the pressure is greater the nearer the sun, just as the pressure in water is greater the farther down, would not the tail of the comet seek the lower pressures and the head the higher, just as a cork tied to a nail with a string would float above the nail.
Is not the opposition of pressures and the desire of potential to seek its own pressure zone just as acceptable an explanation as the theory of light repulsion? Is this explanation not also more logical, for is not the sun the great center of attraction of this system? If so, is it quite logical to say that the sun attracts and the sun's light repels? There is however, a half truth here, for light is accumulated energy which heats to incandescence as it accumulates, radiates as it heats and expands as it radiates. [See 5.8.5 - The complete Contraction Expansion Cycle is as follows]
Expansion is a state of corpuscular separation upon which the repulsion principle is based.
The expansion pressure of radiation is a state of motion which pushes, just as the contraction pressure of generation is a state of motion which pulls. [See Entropy, Syntropy]
The other half of this truth is that light and mass are the same. Mass is also accumulated energy which cools as it radiates and which contracts as it cools.
Contraction is a state of corpuscular integration upon which the attraction principle is based.
Here are two half truths which trace the source of both opposites to the same focal center. Let us consider these two half truths and see if they cannot be made into one whole truth.
First let us consider whether light or mass either repels or attracts as a substance or as an aggregate of substances, or whether it is motion alone which performs these miracles of whirling suns and planets about in space to suit its whims.
If light repels, something else must attract, for it would not be possible for light to do both.
Yet the physicist bases the phenomenon of growing plant life upon the ability of light to attract.
That process which he terms "photosynthesis" is one in which the light of the sun is presumed to attract and to assemble substances into form.
Every physicist knows to a certainty that light directed against a metallic plate will increase its positive charge. More than that, various intensities and colors of light will vary the positive charge. Further still, various metals will vary vastly in their ability to absorb additional positive charge from the same sources of light.
Further still, metal plates so overcharged by the light will gradually lose that charge in the dark.
Consider light in the aspect of a flame. The flame from a birch log rises rapidly in a direction radially away from the earth's center in exactly the opposite direction from that in which a log of birch would fall.
128
The birch log is the accumulated potential of contractive pressure and is consequently subject to gravitational pull which is preponderant to the expansive pressure of radiational push.
The flame from the birch log is a series of explosions which release the accumulation of contractive pressure. The flame is a suddenly expanded radio-active release of energy which so explosively and so eagerly seeks the lower potential of pressures far removed, that the friction caused by resistance to so great a speed develops heat enough to produce incandescence. The birch log and the flame from it are the same substance. The substance has but reversed its pressure preponderance. [See antagonism]
Here is a substance which appears to attract when its power-time is in preponderance and its volume contracted, and to repel when its speed-time is in preponderance and its volume expanded.
If substance attracts, something else must repel.
It is unreasonable and illogical to say that substance can both attract and repel.
What is there in this universe other than substance? There is the motion of substance.
Does substance attract and motion repel? Let us consider this. We are familiar with the fact that warm air rises and cold air sinks.
Here is the same substance proceeding in opposite directions, certainly not because of a difference in substance.
We are familiar with the rain falling to the ground and the vapor rising to the clouds.
Here again is the same substance proceeding in opposite directions.
We are familiar with the expulsion of water by oil, of naphtha by water, of ether by naphtha, of hydrogen by air, and innumerable other substances which repel other substances for some good reason.
We are also familiar with the fact that the ability of different substances to expel or repel each other is a relative one.
We are familiar with the attraction of chlorine for sodium, of nickel for iron, of fluorine for hydrogen, of boron for nitrogen, bromine for potassium and innumerable other substances which attract other substances for some good reason.
We are also familiar with the fact that the ability of different substances to attract each other is a relative one.
We are also familiar with methods whereby opposing substances can be induced to attract each other by forcing a union under high pressure, or by using a catalyst as a mediator.
Likewise, we are familiar with methods which will separate bonds between united substances.
Can it be possible then, that substance has any relation to those qualities which we call attraction or repulsion? If, by changing the volume of a mass, it rises instead of obeying the pull of gravitation, is it not reasonable and logical to assume that volume has some power to modify gravitational pull. If, by changing the temperature of two equal masses of the same substance, they separate, and if by equalizing them, they come together, is it not reasonable and logical to assume that temperature has some relation to the phenomena of attraction and repulsion? If, by changing the temperature of two equal masses of the same substance, it changes their volumes, densities, pressures and all other dimensions, is it not logical to assume that dimension is in some manner related to the phenomena of attraction and repulsion? One needs no more convincing proof of the relative ability of mass to attract and to repel than this well known characteristic of all elemental substances to find each other.
When substances find each other, they also find their opposites which revolve in exactly the same plane.
Every state of motion is seeking a similar state of motion.
Every state of motion has not only its own pressure zone, but its own plane.
All of the elements of matter revolve in their own separate planes. The atoms of each element will eventually come together when released from locked positions in higher potentials. [See Chart of Locked Potentials]
Every mass revolving in one plane resists the proximity of mass revolving in any other plane.
Any compound, mass of varying plane will eventually separate into its constituents, each of which will find its true position in its own plane and pressure zone.
129