With so much information and so much to learn, in so many pages, what could be the gravity of a chemistry school
book, and from where do the highest mountains come, climbing up into the sky? "They come from the sea and this testimony is written into their rock and the walls of their summits.
The highest gains its height from the deepest."(1)
Up from below, they would say, and the spirit of heaviness whispers, and wonder-wrought waves become bone in winter's ice of a
There is the cost of books at the college book store, and the time and energy that would be invested in reading and understanding them. There is the weight of grasping
the subject matter contained, and the actual weight of the elements and materials that are only discussed in the book, and are not actually there, except in virtue of being at large in the world of creation and for discussion. Then there is the weight and
density of the book itself. There is the gravity of the social environment of school, the time of class, and course deadlines of the syllabus. There is the gravity of the grade obtained, A - F, and, of course, the gravitational costs of tuition.
With the insanities of inflation, tuition and school costs
certainly will increase. It could become heavier and more dense. "Graviora manent", they used to
say, which means "heavier things remain", and sometimes greater dangers are ahead. There is more work to be done.
But how does the physical weight of a 3 pound text book whistle to work in gravity? Fluttering pages, what does it do in gravity, and
what does it show about the Earth and its relation to the Sun?
"No man ever wetted clay and then left it, as if there would be bricks by chance
and fortune," and it demonstrates that Newton's theory of heliocentrism and of universal and mutual gravitation by the inverse squared is mistaken; and that his first "law", or "axiom of
motion", that "Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon,"(2) is commonly misconstrued today, as much as it is wrong.
Things fall in place or out not because of Newtonian gravitation, and F = mv or F = ma are two arcane distinctions without a real
difference, except for the sake of appearance. The more prized and modernist F = ma would propose more absurd math fumdiddles and heliocentric nonsense, to escape Aristotle; but even so called "gravitational waves" do not actually exert any gravitational force.
They are said to be ultra-weak disturbances of potential energy fields or other space-time media due to the acceleration of bodies --- since relativity would postulate an equivalence between acceleration and gravity. "So far", however, "they have proved too
weak to detect directly in any laboratory or astrophysical experiment. They are certainly far too weak to have any influence on any macroscopic body in their path."(3)
And the moon then would affect ocean tides because of "gravity"?
The first phrase of Newton's law, that "every body perseveres in its state of rest" ... "unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon", is naturally correct enough. Of course, it goes without
saying that "unless a strong enough force encounter it, a thing stays safely as it was."(4) Columbo might notice too that it is the second phrase, involving continuous "uniform motion in a right line", that dissolves itself in error, since it is unavoidable
that continuation of motion depends also on extensive continuation of some effective force, ipso facto trajectionis vinculum adfectus est.
Trajectory is affected by the link, and
"nature imitates herself: a grain thrown into good ground brings forth fruit: a principle thrown into a good mind brings forth fruit. Everything is created and conducted by the same Master, --- the root, the branch, the fruits --- the priniples, the consequences."(5)
For instance, as the wind dies, flags stop waving and windmills stop turning, and there is no root in nature without its seed, as there is no movement or echo of a sound without its source.
Fontis conditio ea radicibus sine qua non, "gravity" so-called is rather a simple and coextensive attribute of things as they are, in themselves, like radishes, and something in mathematics like division or multiplication by the
number one --- and not any extra-extensive or lateral force. Not being a lateral force, it is not a radial or mechancial one either, since a radial force is also lateral from the axis of rotation.
As a strictly coextensive attribute, like multiplication or division by one, and something that would make sense, it becomes a simple matter of structural
weight and density: and as circumstances are on Earth, it brings things loosed across the surface of the Earth to rest, as the Earth is always stationary before them. And weight by itself does not constitute a source of motion.
The property of weight may be
regarded as a matter of density, mass, composition and compression, and of impressed forces, et cetera, and that is what "gravitas" means. Yet weight is not an occult action-at-a-distance like Newtonian "gravitation". Weight by itself does not cause motion
and cannot by itself support a scientific theory of motion. Weight from the Earth does not cause the Moon to go around it, for example.
Objects loosed in motion across the Earth tend to come to rest on the Earth, not necessarily, as in the first law
of motion from Newton, because of "impressed forces", but because of the simple nature of finite motion and finite force in the first place. Finite motions and forces per se, such as those commonly taking place across the Earth, cannot persevere infinitely
in "uniform motion in a right line" anyway, regardless of whatever friction or interference may or may not occur.
An infinite motion must have an infinite source, and infinite motion in a straight line is not at all possible, since every straight line, "right line" as Newton calls it, has a beginning and an end, and, therefore, clearly,
no straight line can be infinite. If a force is activated along a right line, the character of instantiation that makes it finite in the beginning and finite in the end is its own essential compressed quality in the line, that is inescapable in the nature
of finitude itself.
The only infinite motion mathematically and logically possible is circular.
Not only by metaphor but by simple math and logic, circles, not straight lines, would symbolize infinite motion. Without beginning or end, circles are the best symbols of eternity, and of any infinite motion or infinite force, not straight lines "forever".
Bodies in motion across the Earth and those in outer space do not persevere in a uniform right line. Rather,
those loosed on Earth tend to come to rest as the Earth itself is always stationary before them; and the celestial bodies up above, that are persevering in continuous uniform motion in space, are all going in circles, traiectiones motusque stellarum,
not in right lines.
And "gravity", as it would be hidden in free fall acceleration, works
vertically and down, not laterally; therefore also, it is not circular, infinite, or universal. Gravity does not impel or compel things in horizontal motion. It does not throw, push, or pull things to the side. Rather, gravity works in straight lines vertically,
in the direction called "down" that is perpendicular to the surface of still water.
or extra-extensive, it does not throw things sideways. The gravity and weight discovered in a chemistry school book is not from some part of universal gravitation but from the elements themselves that compose it. A result of efficient cause, also called causae
per se, meaning what something is as it is itself, the weight of the book is authentic as a simple and coextensive attribute of being, and of authenticity in things that are ... and are either in motion or at rest. A question of quiddity and quality, whether
opened or closed, yet there is not a radial force from "gravity" to move things laterally, or the pages.
Not electricity, magnetism, or electro-magnetism either, not the quality
of hot or cold or wet or dry, the "gravity" that Newton was talking about is not an element of nature itself, not more than generalized density in contrast to rarifiability. Something different from the thing itself, yet that which would be hidden in the structure
and design of things, in motion or at rest, Newton's "gravity" would correspond to accidental, coincidental, and efficient causes in opposition but not the opposition itself.
A three pound chemistry school book left on a desk, or in an old abandoned turnip truck, will not ever move because of gravity. Four pumpkins put in the four corners of the bed of an old abandoned
turnip truck, will never gravitate towards one another in the middle or to something outside. Gravity does not move mountains, and it does not move pumpkins laterally; and the Earth is not moving due to any influence of gravitational force or attraction from
the Sun or the Moon, or any other celestial body that orbits it.
How obvious that the Earth
is not moving, and the Foucault pendulum hoaxem at the Judeo-Masonic controlled UN proves it also, if one could not already tell by walking around, and mountains of interferometer experiments like Michelson-Morley prove it as well: the Earth is authentically
With some real collection of density, gravity could become as real in nature as
gravitas, perhaps, but that would not make it electricity or radio waves, or x-rays, of course, or put it within the spectrum of magnetism or electro-magnetism by the inverse squared. Not more of an atomic mystery than chemistry or chemical charges themselves,
and not an explosive or lateral force, and not actively elemental, it is not in fields or clouds of opposition either. Yet from where do the forms and tension in events come, and how do they have a purpose, rhyme, and reason? How do they have ends?
Graviora manent, and A and B are not A and B on two opposite ends of a line or a stick because of gravity. Even if it represents
a radiating sphere of influence, that attracts or repels, the golf ball does not roll along a right line for what Newton and heliocentrism erroneously theorized as an occult action-at-a-distance to explain the cosmos. Rather, what is in question is something
passive; and it must be simple and logical all the while, as it would be in occurrence in geometry and space by weight of the numbers, and the structure and design of things that are real, in quale quid.