Other things

Pluet credo hercle hodie. By Hercules, I believe it will rain today.  Plautus

Not first things other things

Not first more than other*, among things like a torsion balance, an atomic interferometer, a pack of cigarettes, liquor stores, score cards and various handicaps, or whatever it may be in occurrence by misty brook, the force of gravity has been said to be constant. For example, "the accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly since the original Cavendish experiment. G is quite difficult to measure, as gravity is much weaker than other fundamental forces, and an experimental apparatus cannot be separated from the gravitational influence of other bodies. Furthermore, gravity has no established relation to other fundamental forces, so it does not appear possible to calculate it indirectly from other constants that can be measured more accurately, as is done in some other areas of physics. Published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive."(1)(2)

When Cavendish first measured gravity his thought was not actually to measure the gravitational constant, but rather to measure the Earth's density relative to water, through the precise knowledge of the gravitational interaction. The density that Cavendish calculated implies a value for G of 6.754 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. However, the gravitational interactions of water and the Earth are not only gravitational ... nor are they constant.

Rain may spoil a picnic but save a farmer's crop. Circumstances in cause and effect, like the quiddity and quality everywhere around us, are also intermittent; and elemental interactions in quale quid at times may involve excess. From top to bottom shelf in liquor stores, for example, and in the smoke and mirrors in smoky back rooms, and in the table of elements, excess remains opposed to nature, where even the bottomless pit has a limit too, at least in the sense of cause and effect, and only being another bad situation, yet that is not the sort of play in terms of expression they want for science by "gravity".  


"The farmer has to be an optimist or he would not still be a farmer", where the gravitation of precipitation remains unpredictable. Yet if there was only one quality of one element, and that would be all, if there was only one interstitial quality in nature, ens inquantum ens, that would be one thing that would be everywhere ... like Newton's idea of gravity and the interstices ... but that is not how it really is for the things in agriculture or the markets. Without fallacy of composition or stepping into infinite regress, however, the ancient Greeks recognized four fundamental qualities corresponding in simple constant ways to four basic elements, e.g., hot and cold, and wet and dry, which assimilate with fire and air, and water and earth. The basic rubric was good enough that it still catches the essence overall of the whole modern table of elements.

Besides the other things like torsion balances, score cards, and luggage of whatever, where is the gravity in the cause and effect in the qualities in the elements? As there is no contact in numbers, only succession, what is the order of operations as gravitation goes to a center? Where is the gravity or algebra of events except always in the same place, in the tension of existence, pressure, mass, weight, balance, structure, and elemental design of things that would have a center?

Since the accuracy of the measured value of G has increased only modestly, even if not quite more than a little, if a mote, after the original Cavendish experiments, take a look at the numbers.

1. G = 6.754 × 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 is from Cavendish's experiments.

2. G = 6.693 × 10^-11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared, with a standard error of the mean of ±0.027 × 10^-11 and a systematic error of ±0.021 × 10^-11 cubic meters per kilogram second squared, is from atomic interferometer experiments.

3. G = 6.674 x 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 is from a heliocentric science textbook.

The other things and their measurements in the formula are the same except for .754, .693, .674. Then what is that little stuff in the modica of the vapors? Was that some of the universal and constant gravity in the .754, .693, .674? Would that have been what it was? How did it change, if it was universal and constant, and where did it go in constant mutability? Is it only the darkness that follows under shadowy feet in a game of relativity and hocus pocusThe lithosphere may become as dry as the desert air without water, as dry as hydrogen or oxygen without the same.


The same one way and with so much invested in things or too much on the mind it is easy to forget about main matters and other stuff at hand. Besides these and such numbers, in resolution, various experiments with ultra-sensitive torsion balances have found discrepancies in Newton's inverse square law, "to the tune of .37%, quite innocuous to the average Joe on the street, but a gaping hole in the world of science."-3 


A windsail like a windsock fills out with wind. So it goes with the world of motion and is. It fills out and moves with being. There is always more, and heliocentrism still denies there is a center, and that anything or any place in the cosmos is authentically stationary. Acentric cosmology says everything is in motion, including the Earth, of course, and there are only relative states of rest in relative inertial frames of reference. Even if things may look at times as though they are stopped, they never really are. At most, they are only relative inertial frames of reference, as everything must be quick to be.

Would it be, however, that measuring constant changeability in percentages and motion of some sort, and relative inertia in various things of relativity, is only the vapors, "through a glass darkly", rather than gravity? If it is not more constant and universal than the vapors, and not yet, how could it be so already? If it were constant and universal, it should be constant and universal already --- and have always been so. 

Circumstances and conditions may represent something some way that sometimes is not yet, yet uniformly euphemistic for science, the thing, the thing as it is, like any other step in divination or division or multiplication by 1, et cetera, but is it fair to call that "gravity" in the sense sought by Copernicus? Where varied circumstances prevail, predicated or activated in separate spheres, therefore, the Newtonian and heliocentric theory of gravity and of the cosmos must be simply wrong, since surrounding things are not constant and universal by the differentiations, other than by one, neither nor no ni na and the experiments that come and go either. 


*as anothet thing would be, within the great circle, of course