"Cum calculo mundatus ignito", cleaned with a burning coal, for some sense of the what how and the calculus in quale quid. In quale quid would mean
"in how the what", and referring to the logic and predication of cause and effect, an important question sometimes, how the what is, to apprehend
the operation, and Isaac Newton's "Principia" never really answers it regarding gravity.
Throughout the "Principia" and even to now the cause of Newtonian gravitation has remained unassigned. When they say that the universal constant "G" is difficult to measure, with high accuracy, and that scientifically published values of G have varied rather broadly, and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive, it is not without some irony, because it always should
be the same, and is so common, according to theory, that it supposedly is everywhere. (27 151-225)(28pp.42-47)(1&2)
But thank goodness
that in natural units -- of which Planck units are an example -- G may be set equal to 1, at least for practical matters in division, which should never be too much to set
And how special the thing is yet common to sense and calculate gravity by any standard, since division or multiplication by one does not affect anything, even by the inverse squared.
Things that are not in existence, certainly, have the same effect on things that are as multiplication or division by one. Multiply or divide all things by one, and they remain as they already
were. Like magic, things that are not have the same effect on things that are as the so-called "universal force of gravitation by the inverse squared".
In the meantime, for the ways of nil,
have they not noticed that it is obvious to everyone with at least the sense of a goat that the Earth is not moving, and that the Sun orbits the Earth. Therefore, Newton's laws are seriously flawed, not only in observational evidence but in logic as well, since the natural simultaneity of events in time do not represent any common causal relation other than coincidence.
Newton's theory of heliocentrism and of universal and mutual gravitation by degrees of the inverse squared has never progressed further -- in quale quid, as much as possible
-- than demonstrative pronouns, adverbs, strange grammar of calculus and abstract fluxions, geometry, and insane talk shop. Newton's "Principia"
is a cosmic theory of the system of the world, and of things, wherever, whatever, however they are, here and there, that is only set in complicated geometric figures
and delusional math fummdiddles. It is a book of superstitious postulates, of occult actions-at-distance, here and there, in this and that, and these and those, etc., whatever they may be by coincidence,
with no clear way of simplification except for spooks.
As the man from the Bank of England concludes his theory, he sounds obscure like an occultist, an Eliphas Levi writing about "the Spirit"
and spirits. It reads almost like an incantation or a chain letter at the end, after so many unreadable passages, where he writes: "And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle Spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the
force and action of which Spirit the particles of bodies mutually attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted,
reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this Spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from
the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration
of the laws by which this electric and elastic Spirit operates."(3)
"A tenero unguiculis es
cognitus", and nobody from Newton to Einstein has been able to explain the how and why, or capture the what, or any of the actual terminations in matter of the so-called spirit or force of gravity any better than Cicero or Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar.
Thus it is merely assumed and treated as though it is not completely imaginary and not debased error, other than what would be in nature to confuse common sense. Yet "when one creates phantoms for oneself, one puts vampires into the world, and one must nourish
these children of a voluntary nightmare with one's blood, one's life, one's intelligence, and one's reason, without ever satisfying them."
What heliocentrism and its theory of gravity
fail to address is that particles and atoms, "corpuscles" as Newton terms them, exist uniquely in many different species, variously charged fields, and clouds, and are overabundant, almost "everywhere", yet their existence is not enough to fill the void and
give rise to form and the virtues of substance. A cloud of steam does not make a steamboat, and particles by themselves do not give rise to the integration and separation of forms. There is something more than the thread itself to make the fabric and design.
So it goes ad infinitum. Rocks and the roots of trees go down, with a common center, and clouds go up with a common ceiling, because of
nature and the admixture of adherence in the elements already. Phenomena is in the percentages, qua qua quaerentis concordia geometriae, not because of "gravity". By likeness and unlikeness, natura naturans, things adhere, combine, repel, or blend in as they
are. When examined more closlely, "… classical [Newtonian] mechanics, with its principle of inertia and its proportionality of force and acceleration, makes assertions which not only are never
confirmed by everyday experience, but whose direct experimental verification is fundamentally impossible: one cannot indeed introduce a material point all by itself into an infinite void and then cause a force that is constant in direction and magnitude to
act on it; it is not even possible to attach any rational meaning to this formulation. And of all the experiments by means of which textbooks of mechanics are wont to prove the fundamental law of mechanics, not a single one has ever been carried out in practice."(4)
Newtonian gravitational attraction is a mirage by the inverse squared. In contrast to Newton's postulate of universal and mutal gravitation by the inverse squared, the actual sign recognizable in falling objects, that would be gravity, works in the vertical way down only not horizontally. The descent falling down is within different circles as merely a coextensive attribute of being, not as a generative
or innate force in matter. The gravity does not go up, but down, and it does not move things sideways but falls in the limit of circumscribed zones.
Even with all the money and stakes invested in heliocentrism today, science admits that the "gravitational force" between an electron
and proton -- that is already representing a chemistry charge and geometry -- only one meter apart is approximately 10^-67 newtons. And the electron and proton are unqualified, except for positive and negative. This means gravity is incredibly weak and undetectable when compared with even the slightest forces we are able to experience directly. Gravity is routinely described as far weaker than
all other fundamental forces, and cannot even match a specific quality. So weak that no one is ever able to experience it directly, in fact, its only occurrence among scientists is indirectly through abstract theory.
Weaker than a tiny little kitten or the world's most microscopic refrigerator magnet, this is the force that would drive the Moon ... and
the Sun ... around the Earth across such vast distances and at tremendous astronomical rates ... every day?
"Science means simply the aggregatge
of all the recipes"(5), and if Newton ran a cooking show, the way he theorizes in the "Principia", no one would ever know what he really cooked. There would be very complicated recipes with fantastic sounding ingredients, but no one would ever really
know what it was. It would be all this and that, and these and those, in the end, here and there.
"Quis id coxit coquus?" what cook prepared this?(6)
Sometimes between twins, God only knows which is which, but "figures do not lie, but liars do figure", and even with commercials and TV, there is no money in gravity. There is no business, no recognized value
other than division or multiplication by 1, no differentiating cost item or profit in gravity. Big G and little g(ffa) are not in the table of elements or bombs, jet fuel, thermate, the deal of the century or laser beams, and no one is making a property value of them or the what-how they would supposedly represent among other things, or their supposed functions. There is not any money charge or changing for gravity like other things in physics and science. Without any known use or recognizable scale, it is not commercialized at all. No bill or expense account however small has ever been settled exchanging
gravity. So where is it then?
How did it escape completely the power of money and commercial development?
In his third law of motion,
Newton says, "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts."(7) This saying has been made popular, is often repeated, and sounds catchy, but
it does not represent a practical scientific principle. Every natural action is genuinely quantitative, certainly; and, like the issue of being and form as substance itself, "numerically one and the same", quantity has no contrary. For example, "there is nothing
that forms the contrary of 'two cubits long' or of 'three cubits long', of 'ten' or any such term. A man may contend that 'much' is the contrary of 'little', or 'great' of 'small', but of definite quantitative terms no contrary exists."(8)
In the same way, substrati utilitatis ultissimi subsidiis, five pounds of force
is five pounds of force, qua five, as far back as it goes, and it does not have a contrary. If five pounds of specific force meets another five pounds of similar specific force, this way or that, or at opposite ends of a balance, for quantity they match out,
and when things balance perfectly it represents something unique. "Number", after all, "is a discrete quantity."(9)
Like the pantheistic "law of conservation of energy", so called,
which happens to follow along with Newtonian and heliocentric physics, and a creative reading of Propositions 40 and 41 of the "Principia"(10), which would teach "that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only changed from one form into another
or transferred from one object to another", Newton's third law is superficial, erroneous, and scientifically unsound -- like his discussion of gravity and occult action-at-a-distance.
this specious law of conservation of energy, who could believe that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, when all that energy is is either creative or destructive of something? There is an end, and "the strength of walls depends on the courage of those
who guard them"(11), and different results in life are everywhere, since the same thing cannot be and not be. "Generation is distinct from destruction, and destruction is the contrary of generation as much as dimunition is of increase"(12), and energy means
activity of some sort. Greek en (in, with) + ergon (work) energos is the root of the meaning, and what work or activity is not creative or destructive of something?
Minoa, late early 2nd millenium BC, wrote, "with a broken arrow or a broken string, the bow is lost. Life is full of strings and tension. I feel it, and there was another day of opportunity that I might have
had, but I am having this one."
If interactivity is not creative or destructive, how are the opposite results and extreme cases so different? Survival and permanence are a creative
process and anything that has survived destruction is creative for itself at least. Entropy and dissipation are measures of disorder, and extensive disorder may go so far as conclusive destruction. In some
cases, it may even mean death, not just obsolescence, when organisms or vehicles cease to take in energy and die, et cetera.
modernist science, the second law of thermodynamics contradicts the first, called the the Law of Conservation of Energy, so much that one famous Austrian physicist, Ludwig Boltzman, committed suicide because
of it. Boltzman had been pondering the "meaning of the second law of thermodynamics (commonly called 'entropy')", as much as if he had been seeking the meaning of life in the exigencies of
mulch and bugweed, and "he got so depressed by the hopelessness of it all, that he killed himself."(13) He even had "generalized the second law and took it out of the realm of thermodynamics and into the
realm of information theory and statistical mechanics,"(14) and derived the current formula for entropy as "S = k ln w", which is inscribed on his tombstone. Boltzman was not deluded or ignorant of the confusion of modern science, but realized that the interactions of the second law contradicted the first so much that it not only doomed the first but the whole universe as well.
of the careless predictions subsequent to the second law working over the first, yet with the first, would be "that the truth is less likely to be believed than fiction."(15) In a cynical yet similar way, as if it were a secret combination not an accident,
that bad prinicples chase out good ones, as much as bad money chases out the good, Lenin famously said, "a lie told often enough becomes the truth."
When the two laws combine, they become
something like a duality and disorder in Murphy's Law: if anything can go wrong, it will in both cases. Formally, if the second law, ipso facto, could not also bring itself about, how could it not,
however, destroy the first and then itself, for the sake of entropy? If a broken vase cannot begin to undermine itself by itself for porosity, or set itself up to be further destroyed, to wreck totally the formal and material work in the constructive tension
of the vase, then how can it be smashed to pieces and still hold water?
How does the second hold the first?
If it does not make
sense to pour water into a broken vessel, how can disorder in systems increase yet things remain the same? If work and energy are not productive of creative or destructive results, how does anything add up in the end, other than following division by zero,
where all numbers turn out equal in a circle that does not exist? How can it not be lost, if it has been destroyed, or how can it be, if it never was created in the first place?
"No water, no life. No blue, no green"(16). If King Clovis did not permanently lose the Vase of Soissons to violence and stupidity, what happened to the
barbarian in the ranks who later lost his own life for smashing it to so many pieces?
The first law of thermodynamics would even say that it does not matter what day or time it is: high noon or
midnight, the same arrangements can always be made at another time and place, and achieve the same results later. If not this spiral now or then, then later for the same, and no worries from now or where, since there will always be some more like either that
The second law, in contradiction of endless opportunity, would say that schedules and their participants tend to run out of time and energy; and things that have not fit in, from one cause
or disorder or other, tend over time to not fit in again later either. Rather there is a tendency in things, if from disorder, to not reappear. By the second law, there would be caution that, "tempus fugit et ephemera ad fenestra dissolvet", time flies and
ephemera by the window will dissolve.
With his alchemy and his work, Newton went overboard. From where he was,
there he went, out the window, taking a dive, using unqualified terms like "every" and "always" carelessly -- and he dragged modernist scientific materialism with him to the shadowy deep. "Every" and "always" are big words to use in quale quid, in any kind
of science; and the proof for his theory is not in the bottle but only in figments of the mind. People can believe almost anything, but it would be good to be reasonable first.
Newton seems to have been at wits' end talking about the power hidden in many reflections. Since every reflection has its reflection, the "Principia" sounds like Newtonian metaphors in deep complications
and mirrors, math fummdiddles for a sort of pre-Socratic and occult monism: the glyph monad of John Dee from 123 years before, the Monas Hieroglyphica,
hidden in an apple set to Newton's calculus, where it would be believed by a subtle form of dualism and combinations by the inverse squared that "all is one". But all is not one, not like that, since so many things are different, truly different, and
Newton's book was bad metaphysics and alchemy besides, where it still fails to turn base metals into gold. The third law of motion in the "Principia" was only in Newton's mind not the real world where
it only is a possibility that sometimes to an action there may be opposed an equal reaction, and that the mutual actions of two bodies upon each
other may be equal, and directed to contrary parts, et cetera.
In reality and the practice of applied mechanics, forces are rather unique results in genera and of definite species. Actual forces are in specific and generic codes, and to every force code there is not always opposed
an equal reaction. In fact, any instance of force and code ever applied is unique, as much as its quantity, with what has been called "haecceitas",
which means "thisness", as in "this that is unique".
More than gravity, haecceitas is everywhere like limit curves of inifinity in as many codes and circles as there could be. In all forces in
quale quid, whether by necessity or chance, it is the thisness in occurrence of the "thing-in-itself", das Ding an sich, at whatever level. As much as wind over water is different from wind over concrete, and
by so many other things as well, the innumerable complexity of it is total, even in the luminiferous aether. As teleological, efficient,
and formal as the CMB dipole, and the amplitude of the plenum, if not eminent like Descartes, Euclid, and Aristotle, nobody can ever leave home without it. Therefore, for needles in haystacks and locksmiths, Newton's law III would only be after a manner of speaking in metaphysics and poetry, so far as it goes as some thought about reflections and
oneness for the same.
Newton's work is tinged with the fallacy of composition, and the theory of universal gravitation "shows a defect in Newtonian dynamics, since an empirical system ought not
to contain a metaphysical assumption, which can never be proved or disproved by observation."(17)
Heliocentrism can be disproved, however, by simple common sense, since the question of being, ens
inquantum ens, divides in two between the finite and the infinte; and the finite cannot ever equally observe or oppose the infinite, since of the infinite there is no number, other than one to divide
As the psalmist says, "The Lord tells the number of the stars and calls them all by name ... and of his wisdom there is no number."(18)
If every action did always have an equal and opposite reaction, then there should be an infinite number of them, of equal and opposite reactions and effects, that run on and on to every little action. This way there
should be an eternal recurrence of all things, even the littlest and most insignificant and accidental things, which is only a contemplative fantasy, and not really possible by any means of convenience. Forever inconvenient and out of size, the eternal recurrence
of all things is not possible in simple actuality because absolute infinity is indivisible and cannot be fathomed by multiplying however much of so many. Infinity cannot be strung together or reprised by connecting and accumulating things, no matter how many
they would be.
Perhaps one could insist that an eternal recurrence of all things is possible in a potential sense that could be playing in someone's mind, because "people can believe anything";
but that does not solve the problem, since all mental projections are not corresponding with reality.
Certum est quia impossible est. It is certain because it is impossible. Veritas numquam perit.
The truth never perishes, and "every action admits of being outdone. Our life is an aprrenticeship to the truth that around every circle another can be drawn."(19)
If there were an eternal recurrence
of all things and Newton's law III were valid, then little actions and small steps of progress could never be excelled. The occurrence is in the form and also in the quantity, and "what is absoultely infinite cannot be excelled. Any perfection that can exist
in numerically different things is more perfect if it exist in several than if it exist merely in one. Therefore, what is absoultely infinite cannot be found in several numerically different things," as much as that which is absolutely infinite cannot
be made more perfect.(20)
Newton's mechanistic system at the root is based on the fallacy that all numbers are equal and that division by zero would have some meaningful results. This is a problem
that reappears in heliocentrism like pop goes the weasel of anisotropy. It follows Einstein and the system of relativity with a bag of crystals; and, when it penetrates ethics, the way of the error lacks moral restraint and common sense as well. If the cosmos
were only a machine, and relativity were true, and space was totally homogeneous and totally isometric, et cetera, what about all the bad things that have been discovered and the damage that has been done? Good things cannot be conserved or improved, if they
have an equal and opposite reaction in what is bad, or if the difference between them does not matter.
So mechanistic relativity
must be a bad school of thought in its own conclusions, since by its terms the bad and stupid things must go on forever and cannot be separated out from the good. Bad things themselves and stupidity
would become trivialized by abstractions and equality of division, as only mechanistic parts of relativity and modernist physics.
In the real world anyway, Newton's law III could only work so far as
this and that, and these and those, whatever they may be, that would be operating here and there with limited and particular qualifications, in unique cases of charge, impetus, stability, assimilation, and design, et cetera.