With so much information and so much to learn, what could be the gravity of a chemistry school book? So many pages of formulas and illustrations, and from where do the highest mountains come, climbing up into the sky of the ephemerides?
"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 frozen seashore.
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 only discussed
in the book, and 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.
In French, "gravir" means to climb, and 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,
for more work to be done.
But how does the physical weight of a 3 pound text book whistle to work in gravity? Fluttering pages of atomic theory, and what does it do in gravity, and what does it show about the Earth and its relation to the Sun?
The corny man may survive difficulties of the wallet by straightness of the plow, and "no man ever wetted clay and then left it, as if there would be bricks by chance and fortune."
Stranger things also demonstrate 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 as 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. Where the more prized and modernist F = ma would propose more absurd math fumdiddles and heliocentric nonsense, to escape Aristotle, 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", for actuality 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. Scripted down,
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.
Trajectory is affected by the link, ipso facto trajectionis vinculo. And since "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 in the matter of direction, flags stop
waving and windmills stop turning, and there is no root in nature without its seed and its source. There is no movement or echo of a sound without the combination in the effects.
Fontis conditio ea radicibus sine qua non, and "gravity" so-called is rather a simple and coextensive attribute
of things as they are already in themselves. Like division or multiplication by the number one, it is not any extra-extensive or lateral force for a difference. It is not a radial or mechancial one either, since a radial force is also lateral from the axis
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 already 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, compression, and presence of impressed forces, et cetera, and that is what "gravitas" means. Yet weight is not so complicated as an occult
action-at-a-distance like Newtonian "gravitation". Weight by itself does not cause motion and by itself cannot support a scientific theory of motion. Weight from the Earth, for example, does not cause the Moon to go around it.
Objects loosed in motion across the Earth tend
to come to rest not necessarily as in the first law of motion from Newton, because of "impressed forces", but because of the simple nature of finite motion itself 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.
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, persevering in continuous uniform
motion in space, are all going in circles, traiectiones motusque orbium 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 more than superintendence from the center. 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.
Not explosive or extra-extensive, such a force does not throw things sideways. Strange pitches in baseball are not from gravity,
and the weight discovered in a chemistry school book is not from some part of universal gravitation but from the elements themselves that compose it. As 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. The authenticity in the context is a question of quiddity and quality, whether opened or closed, yet the force is not
radial from "gravity" to move things laterally or flip the pages.
Things in motion or at rest are
so according to the question and virtue of direction, and gravity is not electricity, magnetism, or electro-magnetism either. Not the quality itself or direction of hot or cold or wet
or dry, the gravity that Newton was talking about is not an actual element of nature itself. Not more generalized than density in contrast to rarifiability, it is something different from the thing itself and not innate to matter, yet that which would be hidden
in the structure and design of things in motion or at rest. Stranger evidence for things may be difficult to find, and Newton's gravity would correspond by scientific convention only to accidental and coincidental causes in opposition but not the opposition
A three pound chemistry school book left on a desk, therefore, 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.
It is 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, the mountains
of interferometer experiments like Michelson-Morley prove it as well, the Earth is authentically at rest.
With some real collection of density, gravity could become as real in nature as gravitas, perhaps, but that would not make it electricity, radio waves, x-rays, or put it within the spectrum of magnetism or electro-magnetism by the inverse
squared. Not more for atomic mystery than chemistry or chemical charges themselves, and not actively elemental, what Newton described is not in fields or clouds of opposition or quantum mechanics either.
Yet from where do the forms and tension in events come? How do they have a purpose in rhyme and reason other than for division and multiplication by one? How do they resolve with aim in ends?
"Graviora manent", the movers say, 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.