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 "gravity"
was universal and mutual by degrees of the inverse squared, but throughout the "Prinicipia" and his lifetime the
cause of "gravity" remained unassigned, and he never measured it.
"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. 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:
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 that is
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 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, that divides everything, even the torsion balance, 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, as much as the number one of it, 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, "G", with a torsion balance, when one can measure
it with a pack of cigarettes or a little box of matches at the corner store?
Because Cavendish and his torsion balance in the laboratory give "G" better scientific cover, white coat bona fides, than a pack of cigarettes
at the corner or the liquor store.
skippy", they 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.
To get Newton's gravity, there is indeed some density needed. For example, if one did want to measure gravity with a pack of cigarettes, rather than a torsion
balance, at the liquor store, it will be better to examine "G" with the solid pack first, as something with density,
than with the smoke. If one tries to measure gravity with the smoke, one will get more smoke ... obviously .. and mirrors perhaps ... than "gravity", because smoke does not fall down to
the Earth with much gravity.
Also, do not test the force of gravity too much with the light that comes from
a short match by pointing the match down. 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, and 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 force of 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, and up,
getting more oxygen against gravity, and new life, until it consumes the 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 to the other end. The fire naturally looks for the wood that it can find, as high as it may go to the treetops.
Whether testing the force of gravity with a torsion balance
or cigarettes, the discovery will be that gravity is weaker than even the littlest refrigerator magnet in the world ... or the tiniest lovebugs, Bibionidae or Plecia neartica. In fact, even the chorus box of scientists admit 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 itself does not move itself alone ---
"suamet ipse" --- as it is simplewise or would be strictly by itself. Not moving itself alone, and not moved by itself alone, therefore, 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, and since there must always be objects --- otherwise there would not be gravity --- there must be objects first.
objects themselves are not in the category of first mover, but they always come before gravity. Even though hypothetical forms of gravitation would set things in motion, supposedly, if it were scientific, gravity does not move anything laterally anyway; and
it cannot move things only vertically, since the Earth and the cosmos are spheres: and it also comes after all objects, that it would move, for where there is no principle object there is no gravity. Since it is known that objects do not move themselves but
are moved, whatever way they go, it is fair to say that gravity, or "gravitation", does not move objects, since what moves objects must come first.
And there once
was a Hollywood actress, a talent 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! She had forgotten about it almost totally, and it was obvious that school had not been at the top of her list. In fact, it was discovered that she had been a regular truant, and had been skipping school and going to the beach before she
got lucky and became an actress.
"I was learning things", she said, "you know not first things other things."