Gravitational Blind Spots

It is purported by many and perhaps believed by most that science provides the single best explanation for the phenomena of the world. I'm inclined to agree, myself, provided you're talking about science as a methodological practice and not Science, the Ideology. The virtues of the scientific method - close observation, rigorous thought, lightness of belief - are of unparalleled importance in any investigation of the cosmos, but modern science often commits the error of disregarding the latter and possibly most crucial, namely holding one's beliefs lightly, for it is only by making as little investment of self in the rightness or wrongness of one's theories that one maintains the flexibility of mind to modify those theories when new data presents itself. Once the ideas are believed for their own sake, well, the thought becomes muddled and the observation develops blind spots.

We have a theory of gravity, general relativity, bequeathed to us by Einstein, that does a stellar job of describing the gravitational behaviour of large objects. Well, within certain tolerances of course: the Pioneer anomaly showed us that our understanding was actually subtly incorrect, though as of yet there has been little explanation as to just from where the correction might arise. The other, maybe better known problem with relativity is that it breaks down completely at the atomic scale, yielding nonsensical answers. You might almost say that the theory has an enourmous gaping blind spot at the scale of the atom. Despite this flaw it is, I think, taken for granted that the answers it yields at a mesoscale are accurate.



Then there's QED, quantum electrodynamics, otherwise known as the Standard Model by which the subatomic world and all of the electromagnetic phenomena it gives rise to is so fantastically described. Well, fantastic except insofar as the theory breaks down at the stellar scale. Thus physics has found itself for more than a century at a schizophrenic impasse, it's two most successful creations intractably posed against one another.

It's not surprising, then, that there are vast and intricate structures composed out of charged plasmas linking stars and planets together in what may well be a galactic power network, structures that conventional Science ignores altogether because ... well, for no good reason, really, except perhaps that it doesn't want to see them because it would make the universe look too much like the living body it is rather than the dead wasteland of empty stars they'd prefer to see.



What then of gravitation? That's really what I'm here to talk about today. Chances are you've never heard of biogravitational fields. I hadn't, until the phrase came to me as the logical thing to call an idea that's been swimming about in my head for a while, like a freshly hatched fingerling looking for it's mother. I googled the term and while it's certainly not original to me, it's not a widely used one.

All matter, you see, generates gravitation. It's a very weak effect: it takes the entire gravitational field of the earth to keep us in place, whereas the electromagnetic effects of even a small piece of the earth are enough to counteract it. When you hold something in your hand, for instance, the earth's gravitation doesn't rip it through: the electromagnetic forces of the atoms making up your hand are sufficient to stay the object's motion. In fact, of the four forces known to conventional physics (gravity, electromagnetic, and the strong and weak nuclear forces) gravity is by many orders of magnitude the weakest.



The usual conclusion within the physics community is to state that since gravity is so weak, the gravitational force of anything smaller than a moon is pointless to measure or contemplate. That their mathematics work so well at large scales, and so poorly at smaller ones, only makes their failure to consider the gravitational fields of mesoscale collections of matter (like trees or people) an easier route to take.

But here's this interesting Eastern idea, regarding the subtle body with ki in place of blood and chakras for organs. Now, what sort of leaps out at you about chakras is that traditionally they line up along the axis of the organism, something I think is very significant. Another significant point is that the subtle body is just that, subtle. It can't be observed by the eye, nor felt with the hand; it is there, but leaves so faint an impression in material reality that it cannot be seen and its influences cannot help but be (there's that word again) subtle.



The subtle body has another interesting property: it is said to be entirely nonlocal, in the sense that once activated it can go anywhere, or to any time, all in zero time, because it partakes of the field of consciousness that weaves the universe together into a single timeless whole.

Now, what of gravitation? It, too, has the property of linking together bodies in space in an instantaneous fashion, not in a direct material way but in an informational sense. The Earth, for instance, is eight light-minutes from the Sun, which means that light - the fastest thing in the material universe - takes eight minutes to get from the Sun to your eyes. The Earth orbits the Sun not where the Sun was eight minutes ago, but where the Sun is right now: otherwise, the orbit would rapidly destabilize and our world would either fly off into space to freeze or fall in and burn. The corollory: gravity is a nonlocal field, transmitting information regarding the distribution of matter to every particle in the universe.

Is this not exactly how Eastern mysticism describes the field of consciousness?

And how about the Law of Attraction?

I guess I'll just come right out and say it: gravity and subtle energy is one and the same thing. If the equations of relativity were solved to show the space-time distortions caused by a human body, or better yet a sensitive enough gravitometer were to perform the measurements directly, I strongly suspect something very like chakras would appear. I'd like to think that the consequences of such a discovery would be enourmous, heralding as they would a merger of the most advanced western thought with the most ancient Eastern traditions, but I have a feeling that the initial response would be rather underwhelming on the part of Science: a whole lot of silence, perhaps, and maybe some character assassination if the discoverer refused to shut up about it.

Well, in the meantime, I don't intend to wait for the lab results. This seems to me to be an understanding from which practical results at an individual level can be gotten without expensive experiments involving high tech lab equipment and brilliant scientists, for if true than the ideal laboratory is your own subtle body and the best scientist is yourself, for it is through your subtle body that you are gravitationally linked to the whole of the cosmos and there is no one better to explore that cosmos through that subtle body than you.