In 1687 Newton published the "Principia", in which he described his theory of gravity and the cosmos. His theory of gravity, as he saw it, provided a fundamental basis to explain "the System of the World". The hypothesis was that gravitation
was universal and mutual by degrees of the inverse squared, but throughout the "Prinicipia" and even today the
cause of "gravity" remains unassigned, and in his lifetime he never measured it.
In fact, gravity, so-called,
as a real and active force in Newtonian physics, was not measured until 111 years after the "Principia", by Cavendish, with a torsion balance in 1798. However, "where demonstration is possible, one who can give no account which includes the cause has no scientific knowledge." Yet from an experiment with a torsion balance, the empirical measurement of the supposed universal gravitational constant, there obtained, and that is written as "G", added to Newton's theory and would also form part
of the basis for the equation of the force of gravity that is accepted today, to wit:
F1 = F2 = G(m1m2)/r^2
where F1 and F2 is the force of gravitational attraction between two particles, masses, or objects, of whatever in whatever kind, however it may be, and "G" is the universal gravitational constant, and
m1 and m2 are the two different masses, indeed the first and second mass, and r is the radius distance between them, as such and so forth, also and/or of the two centers of the masses.
The formula for the expression of the force of gravity involved in gravitation that is taken from Newton's "Principia" can be obtained from Propositions 74 and 75, and Theorems 34 and 35. In these passages the idea is that, "Every point
mass attracts every single other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force
is proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."-1
Since it is taught that according to the law of universal gravitation, the attractive force (F) between
two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, (inverse-square law) between them:
F1 = F2 = G(m1m2/r^2)
may seem okay to some people, but what is "G" really, if it was further obtained with a measurement taken from a torsion balance?
It must not be first or an independent value as much as the number one of it, for itself, that would divide everything, also
the torsion balance, of course, since a torsion balance cannot measure "gravity" beyond its own tension, mass,
pressure, balance, weight, density, structure and design. And whatever the torsion balance was supposedly measuring in terms of "G" could have been measured with anything else, since all other things that could be used to measure gravity have weight, mass, density, tension, pressure, balance, structure and
design too, as much as the number one of them or it, for any other situation, and "G", according to Newton and heliocentrism, is universal and ever present anyway.
If "G" really is the universal gravitational constant of proportionality, for gravity, why measure it with a torsion balance, when one can measure it with a little
bag of Doritos or a pack of cigarettes and box of matches at the corner store? Because Cavendish and
his torsion balance in the laboratory give better scientific cover, white coat bona fides, of course, than a pack of cigarettes at the corner or the liquor store.
"Yippy skippy", the dance of the hours skipping to gravity, Huddle House
smart alecks may say, yet "it is a great mistake to suppose that scientific truths differ essentially from those of every day. An eye armed with a microscope is only a human eye after all. It sees more than the naked eye does, but not in any different way."-2
However, as significant as it has become, and as common as it is, it remains very difficult to measure "G" with any high degree of accuracy. A certain amount of density first is always needed in the test to measure gravity. If things are too rarefied,
one will not be able to get a good measurement.
get Newton's gravity, there is indeed some density required, yet not much more than the things themselves. On the authority of one who shall remain nameless, there is no harm in repetition for science to get things right. Therefore, if one did want to measure gravity with a pack of cigarettes, or a little bag of Doritos down to the crumbs and salty particles, rather than a torsion balance or a golf tee at the liquor store, it will be better to examine "G" with the solid pack first, as something with required density and form, rather than with the smoke. If
one tries to measure gravity with the smoke, one will get more smoke ... obviously .. and mirrors perhaps in a back room ... than "gravity", because smoke does not fall down to the Earth
with much tension of force.
Also, do not
test the force of gravity too much with the light that comes from a short match by pointing the match down. Such a light is not moved by gravity, and the flame is an anti-gravity device that will go up the little stick and burn the fingers. The same thing
occurs with a fireplace: the wood stays down while the fire goes up. Therefore, wait and blow the flame of a lit match out first and test gravity with the burnt stick. The wood is denser than air and will yield a fair enough test of the forces of tension,
accomodation, and gravity in that case, as well as any torsion balance.
Ignis ardens, per proprietatem ascensionis suamet, deforis esse tractuum gravitatis: burning fire, by its own property of ascension, is outside the pull of gravity. A foot long match may be useful for testing the
proof further, since the flame will tend to go out early, before the end of the stick, unless one points it down. Once pointed down, however, a flame that was about to go out will increase and climb up, getting more oxygen to climb up against gravity, for
new life, until it consumes the other end of the stick. A scientist can switch hands and hold the burnt end of a long match, and let the little fireball climb all the way up
the height at the other end. The fire naturally looks for wood and air that it can find, as high as it may go to the treetops, et cetera.
Whether testing the force of gravity
with a torsion balance or cigarettes, the discovery will be that gravity is weaker than even the tiniest refrigerator magnet in the whole wide world ... or the littlest lovebugs, Bibionidae or Plecia neartica. Even the chorus box of scientists admit that
it is by far the weakest of forces, and the weakest of the four fundamental interactions, described in modernist physics; yet according to Newton and heliocentrism it is everywhere, high and low, and is what is keeping the grand symphony of cosmic things together
and in motion.
After testing these things scientifically, however, some investigators perhaps
would disagree, and reasonably conclude that Newton's "gravitation" is the vaguest thing possible that is not an act of complete disutility.
For instance, it could go without saying that gravity does not move itself alone -- "suamet ipse" -- as it is or would be strictly imposed most simplewise by itself with nothing there. Not moving itself alone,
and not set in sequence by itself alone yet among things, its own supposed principle of operation does not move except where there are first objects in the course. Surely there must be objects for gravity to move, to do its work, to set any such force of summary
illustration in motion; and since there must always be objects -- otherwise there would not be gravity -- there must be the objects first in any whatevers of such a case.
Yet mere objects themselves are not in the category of first mover. They only go so far but they always come before gravity, since gravity is after all objects and the sides that it would move, for where
there is no principle object or side there is no gravity. As much as an all-involved point, even though hypothetical forms of Newtonian gravitation supposedly would set things in motion, gravity does not move anything laterally anyway, not sideways at all,
of course. And it cannot move things only vertically, neither strictly up nor acting only down from up, since the Earth and the cosmos are spherical, as pure space is spherical too. In any true sphere the vertical and horizontal make the same difference to
any points without a set label. Since it is known that objects do not move themselves but are moved, and weight by itself does not constitute a source of motion, and in any sphere the decisive separation between sides is an arbitrary distinction, one without
a difference, whatever way they go, it is fair to say that gravity, or what is called Newtonian gravitation, for all such trouble, does not move them, since what moves objects must come first.
The motion or animation of Jupiter, for instance, cannot exist without Jupiter, yet as Jupiter can exist whether it moves or is quite animated or not, Jupiter can also exist as it is without Newtonian gravity or gravitation. In
a way similar to imagination, which cannot exist without sense, gravity cannot exist without objects. Gravity, to be honest, cannot be in a universal position, of such an overall condition over so many things, over the way arrows are too, for example, if it
cannot exist without the particular limited individual objects like Jupiter being there first.
In other words,
can any scientific operation result in a natural number like three, or can a crab go skiing, or an arrow hit a target, without there being such a number or the crab or the target first? It stands to reason that numbers provision operations as much as objects
and sense provision imagination, and for that matter it is the same way too for the imaginary sense of Newtonian gravity. Yet the relation of objects, numbers, and qualities is inherent in immutable principles, and these principles contradict the theory of
universal gravitation, as much as any simple instance of less or more persists. For all the instances of more or less, imagination or gravity, therefore, could say that the sun is perhaps an ancient Anatolian foot or something more than a yard in diameter,
and that Jupiter is even smaller, more or less, and what difference would it make to the facts other than as an error of experience?
Therefore, of course, Judeo-Masonic controlled NASA has never landed on the Moon, because they have even the most basic things wrong which do come first. And there once was a Hollywood actress too,
a beauty queen who became famous for running up and down the beach almost naked, and flirting with short men. She was a sometime guest on talk shows, and during one it was discovered that she could not remember where she had gone to High School. For all the
talent and experience of younger days, she had forgotten about it almost totally, and it was obvious that school had not been a top priority. In fact, it was discovered that she had been a regular truant, and had been skipping school and going to the beach
for many days and days at a time before she got lucky and became an actress.
"I was learning things", she said, "you know, not first things other things."