Astronomical Arguments

Dear Jan:

Just in case I did not make things clear enough in our discussions, I want to summarize the line of argument that is now available to us, and, in my opinion, should be effective, because it goes direct to a significant point, which is that the definition of motion currently in use is much too restrictive, and excludes some of the basic motions of the universe. The argument goes as follows:

1. On the basis of the astronomers’ current interpretation of the observations, the galaxies are moving outward from each other in all directions.
2. Our knowledge of gravitation tells us that a system of gravitating objects moving freely in space will move inward toward each other in all directions.
3. These two phenomena establish the fact that there is in existence a type of motion not currently recognized by the scientific community, one in which all objects of a system are moving inward toward, or outward away from, each other in all directions coincidentally. A motion in all directions has no specific direction, and is therefore scalar. Its only property is a magnitude.
4. In order to represent a system of scalar motions in a stationary spatial reference system, the scalar system must be coupled to the reference system at some specific point.
5. The properties of such a combination of scalar motion and reference system can be determined in detail, as I have done in the article.
6. These properties of a system of scalar motions agree exactly with the observed properties of any system of gravitating objects. It follows that we can identify gravitation as a scalar motion.
7. The considerations applicable to gravitation likewise apply to the analogous electric and magnetic phenomena. Thus the electric charge and its magnetic counterpart are also scalar motions.
8. These findings obviously call for a reconsideration of the fundamentals of physical science.

Turning to another subject, you mentioned something about the various kinds of quarks that had been “discovered.” Two statements by A. Pais in his book on Einstein are of interest in this connection. He says that “To date, at least five species of quarks have been identified.” Most people probably regard “identified” as equivalent to “discovered,” and the widespread belief that quarks have been physically discovered probably results from such statements. But on the same page Pais says “The quarks are hypothetical constituents of the observed hadrons.” Obviously “hypothetical” objects have not been “discovered.”