Gravitation and the Galaxies
Dewey B. Larson, July 1985

Today, three centuries after Newton, gravitation is still one of the enigmas of science. "It may well be
the most fundamental and least understood of the interactions," says Robert H. Dicke. In all of the
efforts that have been made to formulate a unified physical theory the big challenge has always been to
bring gravitation within the theoretical framework. One of the most basic problems is to define the
nature of the phenomenon. According to Einstein's general theory of relativity, the theory that is
currently accepted (often with some reservations), gravitation is equivalent to a motion. This assertion
implies that, while it has some of the characteristics of motion, it is actually not a motion. The
objective of the present discussion is to examine the validity of this conclusion.

Let us consider a dispersed system of gravitating objects isolated in space. From our present knowledge
of the gravitational effects, we can deduce that each of these objects will move toward all of the others.
In this particular case, then, gravitation is a motion, not merely the equivalent of a motion. It is a
motion that differs in some respects from the motions with which we are familiar, but it is by no means
unique. The motions of the galaxies, for example, have the same characteristics, except that these
objects are moving outward away from each other, rather than inward toward each other. All of the
distant galaxies are observed to be receding from our Milky Way galaxy at high speeds. Unless we
make the assumption that our galaxy is the only stationary object in the universe, an assumption that
was repudiated by science long ago, our galaxy is likewise receding from all others. Thus the galactic
system is one in which all individuals are moving outward away from each other.

A small scale example of the same kind of motion can be seen in the motion of spots on the surface of
an expanding balloon, often used as an analogy by those who undertake to explain the nature of the
motions of the galaxies. Here, too, each individual is moving outward from all others. If the expansion
is terminated, and succeeded by a contraction, the motions are reversed, and each spot then moves
inward toward all others, as in the gravitational motion.

In each of the examples cited, the inward or outward motion of the individual points or objects takes
place in all directions, which means that the motions have no specific, or inherent, directions. It follows
that these are scalar motions, defined by magnitude and sign (positive or negative, represented as
outward or inward in the reference system). Here, then, we observe three different examples of a type
of motion, the existence of which is not recognized by present-day physical science.

This lack of recognition is due to the fact that in current practice motion is defined in a manner which
excludes scalar motion. The prevailing view is that motion is a change of position relative to some
identifiable point or object, and it is assumed that this change can be represented in a coordinate
reference system. On this basis, the magnitude and direction of the change are specified by a vector,
which occupies a definite position in the reference system. But it is evident that a system of scalar
motions cannot be represented in its true character in this spatial reference system, as the system of
coordinates has no way of representing simultaneous motion in all directions. In order to make
representation possible, the scalar system must be coupled to the reference system at some particular
point, the reference point, as we will call it. This point, or the object at that location, is then seen as
stationary, or moving vectorially independently of the scalar motion, while all other points or objects in
the scalar system are portrayed as moving inward toward, or outward away from, the reference point.

In the case of the galaxies, we take our galaxy as the reference object, and view all of the distant

Copyright © 1985 by Dewey B. Larson. All rights reserved.

2 Gravitation and the Galaxies

galaxies as moving radially outward from our location. But it can easily be seen that the directions thus
imputed to the galactic motions are determined by the coupling to the reference system, and are not
inherent in the motions themselves. For example, if we denote our galaxy as A, the direction of motion
of galaxy X, as we see it, is AX. But observers in galaxy B see it as moving in the very different
direction BX, those in galaxy C see the direction as CX, and so on.

In this particular case, the reference point is the location of the observer, because we assume that we
are stationary in the spatial reference system that we are using. But in the more general situation, the
observer is outside the scalar system of motions, and the reference point is determined by whatever
influence dictates the coupling to the reference system. The expanding balloon, for instance, may be
resting on the floor of a room, in which case the point that touches the floor is motionless in the
reference system, and is therefore the reference point for the scalar motion.

Before this balloon was placed in the reference system, points A and B on the balloon surface were
moving outward away from each other, and their separation was increasing at a specific rate.
Immobilization of point A, the reference point, in the reference system did not change the rate of
increase in the separation between A and B. But the reference system now shows point A as motionless.
In order to maintain the correct rate of separation between A and B, it is now necessary for the
reference system to attribute the motion of point A to point B, giving that point an additional motion
component, over and above its own motion. It can easily be seen that this is a general property of the
representation of scalar motion in a spatial reference system. The scalar motion of the reference point
or object has to be attributed to the points or objects with which it is (apparently) interacting.

With the benefit of this understanding of the relation between the scalar motion and the reference
system, we can now return to the gravitational problem, and consider the situation in which the
gravitating object is not free to move in the reference system. Here, present-day physical science is
faced with a contradiction. The behavior of gravitating objects that are free to move shows that
gravitation is a motion. But there are gravitating objects that do not change their position in the
reference system, and therefore are not in motion, as motion is currently defined. The reaction of the
theorists to the situation has been to evade the issue by treating gravitation as a force rather than as a
motion.

At this time, therefore, we need to give some consideration to the relation between force and motion.
For application in physics, force is defined by Newton's second law of motion. It is the product of mass
and acceleration: F = ma. Motion is measured on an individual mass unit basis as velocity, or speed
(that is, each unit moves at this rate), or on a collective basis as momentum, the product of mass and
velocity, or speed. Momentum was formerly called "quantity of motion," a term that more clearly
expresses the true nature of the quantity. The time rate of change of motion is dv/dt (acceleration, a) in
the case of the individual units, and m dv/dt (force, ma) when measured collectively. Thus force is a
property of a motion, in exactly the same way as acceleration. It is the time rate of change of the total
quantity of motion, the "quantity of acceleration," we could call it.

It follows from this that a force cannot be autonomous. Every force is, by definition, a property of a
motion. Thus force cannot originate in a motionless object. The problem of the motionless gravitating
objects is therefore not solved by the introduction of the force concept. What is needed is a recognition
that gravitation is a scalar motion, and that the apparently motionless gravitating object is actually
moving inward in all directions just as it is when it is moving in free space. But, like the spot on the
balloon surface that is resting on the floor, and like our Milky Way galaxy, it is coupled to the reference
system in the location which it occupies, and it is therefore stationary in the context of that reference

Gravitation and the Galaxies 3

system.

The effect of a negative (inward) scalar motion is to decrease the separation between the individual
members of the scalar system. Inasmuch as the reference object is actually in motion, even though it is
represented in the reference system as motionless, the gravitational motion of this object contributes to
the magnitude of the decrease in separation between it and any distant object. And since the reference
system cannot attribute this contribution to the object that is represented as motionless, it has to
attribute the entire decrease in separation to motion of the distant object. In the gravitating systems with
which we are most familiar, one member of each system (the earth, for example) is much more massive
than the objects with which it is interacting, and becomes the reference object because it is immobilized
by its own inertia. The contribution of this reference object to the motion of the other objects of the
gravitating system (falling bodies) is clearly evident, and the reference object is therefore credited with
exerting a force of attraction on each of these other objects. When it is recognized that gravitation is a
scalar motion, it can be seen that the motion component, or force, apparently acting against the distant
object is actually the motion of the reference object itself, misrepresented by the reference system,
which is incapable of representing the scalar motion correctly.

The transfer of the motion of the reference object to the objects with which it is interacting explains the
presence of a "force field" in the space surrounding the reference object. This field is not a tangible
physical reality. Nor is it a strain in the hypothetical ether, or in space, as asserted in some theories. In
fact, if there is no other mass within the effective gravitational range of the reference object, the force
field does not correspond to anything at all, other than potentially. But if a mass is introduced into this
region, a portion of the gravitational motion of the reference object is transferred to this mass by the
manner in which the scalar motions are represented in the reference system. Since the reference object
is moving in all directions, the force field due to its motion is radial, and there is no need for the kind of
a distortion of space that Einstein's general theory calls for.

When gravitation is recognized as a scalar motion it becomes evident that the forces due to electric
charges and the corresponding magnetostatic phenomena (magnetic charges, we may call them) are
likewise properties of scalar motions. Observationally, these forces differ from the gravitational forces
only in those respects in which scalar motions are variable; that is, in magnitude and in sign. Here,
again, the absence of observable motion at the points of origin is due to the fact that the locations of the
motions (the locations of the charges) are the reference points at which the motion is frozen by the
coupling of the moving scalar system to the reference system.

This explanation of the origin of the forces that appear to be exerted on the distant objects provides the
answer to the long-standing problem of action at a distance. Newton's gravitational law appears to call
for direct action of one mass on another, regardless of their spatial separation, but many scientists are
strongly opposed to the idea that a force can be exerted without a physical contact of some kind. The
prevailing opinion has therefore been that the force must be transmitted through some kind of a
medium, even though there is no actual evidence to support this assumption. The first hypothesis called
for transmission through a medium, the ether, which was assumed to exist in space, but this hypothesis
encountered difficulties because of the contradictory properties that the ether would have to possess in
order to meet the requirements. It has therefore been succeeded by the concept of space itself as the
medium, with various kinds of fields located in this space. The need for speculative constructions of
this kind is now eliminated by the finding that the apparent action at a distance is merely an illusion
due to the inability of the spatial reference system to represent scalar motion as it actually exists. In
reality each object in a scalar system is pursuing its own course, independently of the other objects in
that system.

4 Gravitation and the Galaxies

The foregoing discussion of the scalar motion situation should be sufficient to demonstrate that by
failing to give consideration to the scalar form of motion modern science has made a serious error. It is
no doubt difficult for most scientists to believe that there could be a major defect in the foundations of
present-day physical theory, but the facts are clear. The existence of scalar motion is incontestable. As
pointed out earlier, it is readily observable in several different phenomena. The properties of this kind
of motion can easily be deduced. Knowledge of these properties then enables identifying additional
phenomena, including some of the most fundamental features of physical activity, as motions of the
scalar type. The need for a thorough reconsideration of basic physical theory to take the various
manifestations of scalar motions into account is therefore clearly indicated.