"Cum calculo mundatus ignito", cleaned with a burning coal, a small dose for some sense of what the how and the calculus in quale quid. In quale quid to mean
"in how the what", and referring to the logic and predication of events, in cause and effect, it may become an important question sometimes,
how the what is, to apprehend the operation, and Isaac Newton's "Principia" never really answers it regarding gravity.
The tendencies in nature are suffuse, yet 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 aside.
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, rather 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 observation but in logic as well as evidence, since the natural simultaneity of events in time do not represent any common causal
relation other than coincidence.
For the order of sequence, Newton's theory of heliocentrism and of universal and mutual gravitation by
degrees of the inverse squared has never progressed further than demonstrative pronouns, adverbs, strange grammars of calculus and abstract fluxions of geometry, and insane talk shop. A cosmic theory of the system of the world, and of things, wherever, whatever, however they are, here and there, Newton's
"Principia" 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 minted voice from the Enlightenment's
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 neighborhood 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 unguicularis cognitus es", and Newton was no St. Patrick, and nobody from them 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 the three wise men, Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar. Thus it merely is assumed and treated as though it is not completely imaginary,
and not debased error, other than what would be in nature and butter 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, as many littlest things in variously charged fields and clouds, et cetera, 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. Predicated on the void in the first place, except by atomic theory no one gets something from nothing, yet 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 to it than even the thread itself to constitute the fabric and design.
However, the pattern is the pattern in the pattern of a mind or in space, and either is the same for the pattern in general, involved in the geometry and resources between them. And the rest, so it goes ad infinitum like universals. 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 in the percentages, qua qua quaerentis concordia geometriae, is not because of
"gravity" any more than the things themselves in themselves. How the what by likeness and unlikeness, so it goes natura naturans, as 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
attraction by the inverse squared is a mirage. In contrast to Newton's postulate, the actual sign recognizable in falling objects, that would be gravity, works in the vertical way down only not horizontally.
The descent operates in falling down within different circles, as merely a coextensive attribute of being, among things that are, not as a generative or innate force in matter. The gravity does not go up, but down, and to the center, 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 the geometry
too -- 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
in substance when compared with even the slightest forces that 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
with all its momentum, 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?
"Wonder. Go on and wonder," and if Newton ran a
cooking show, the way he theorizes in the "Principia", no one would ever know what he really cooked. Yet "science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes".-5 However, with Newton in the heliocentric kitchen, there are very complicated recipes indeed,
with fantastic sounding ingredients, but no one ever really knows what it was. Whatever it was or is, it comes back a confounded sequence, that is really no better than what it would have been as all this and that, like garden loosestrife, and these
and those, in the end, here and there.
Like stuff, one knows, as things in general too, and "quis id coxit coquus?" what cook
Sometimes between twins, and things that may be exactly alike, like weeds too, only God knows which is which, but "figures do not lie, but liars do figure", of course,
and even with commercials and TV, there is no money in gravity. Nobody does anything with it like they do with so many other things valued in the markets. There is no business in it, no recognized
tabulation other than division or multiplication by 1, and no differentiating cost item, or profit in gravity. Big G and little g(ffa) are not in the table of elements or bombs either, not jet fuel, not thermate, not the deal of the century or laser beams.
No one is making property values of big G or little g(ffa) as they would resume it that is in the what-how they would represent in so many waves among other things, or their supposed functions. Individuo,
to the practical concern, there is not any money charge or changing scale for gravity like other things constituted or auctioned in physics and science. Without any known use or recognizable ladder,
it is not commercialized at all. No bill or expense account however small has ever been settled exchanging gravity. So where is it then?
did it escape completely the power of money and commerce -- 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 entity represents 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', or 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
the same way, substrati utilitatis subsidiis ultissimi, five pounds of force is five pounds of force, qua five, as far back as it goes,
back back back 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 in frequency 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, vain, erroneous, and scientifically unsound -- like his discussion of gravity and occult action-at-a-distance, a theorizing dependent on the extent of pronouns rather than on the things themselves, even where
the things themselves are not wholly dependent on extent, and certainly not to such an extent as that, not for the real question of substance.
Regarding 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 in things, and "the strength of walls depends on the courage of those who guard them"(11),
and many different results in life are everywhere, since the same thing cannot be and not be. If directed purpose were not enough, "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, one way or another. 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?
As with nature and so many things, dependence is not only on extent. Since space and its quantitization do not make things the way they are, any connection is not only in the extent but also the sort and craft. Clostridio of Minoa, late early
2nd millenium BC wrote, "with a broken arrow or a broken string, the bow is lost. Life is full of strings. Tension, one may feel it, and there was once another day of opportunity that might have been, but for
circumstances I am having this one not that 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, surely, and anything that has survived destruction is creative for itself at least. Since entropy and dissipation are measures of disorder, and extensive disorder may go so far as conclusive
destruction, many look to be careful. In some cases, a plummet may even mean death, annihilation not just obsolescence, when organisms or vehicles cease to take in energy and die, et cetera.
In 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 had even "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.
One of the careless predictions or prophecies 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 way similar
to the cynics of divination, as if it were a secret combination not only 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, could not be so fundamental in existence too, 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
again, or set itself up to be further destroyed, to wreck totally the formal and material work intended in the constructive tension of vases, as a collection in itself, then how can it be smashed to pieces and still not hold water?
How does the second contain and follow the first, if energy is dependent on things? If gravity too is dependent on things, then is it really by the inverse squared that some of them may come closing in from so far
away, or so close? What sorts of things and how many are there?
If it does not make sense to pour water into broken vessels, how can disorder in systems increase yet things remain the same?
If activity and energy are not productive of actual results, how does anything creative or otherwise destructive add up in the end? What is the point in addition, other than division by zero to follow, where all numbers turn out equal in a circle that does
not exist? How can the answer or the homework not be lost if it has no place or has been destroyed? Or how can it be that seconds in existence have no place, if they never were to follow, as many as there are, and creativity never prioritized among possibilities
in the first place?
Crowd or no crowd, "no water, no life. No blue, no green"(16),
and place must have a value, and a sort that is created. If King Clovis did not permanently lose the Vase of Soissons to an act of violence and stupidity, what happened to the one 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 will do.
The second law, in contradiction of endless opportunity, would say that schedules and their participants tend to run out of time and energy. Things fizzle out, and what has not fit in, from one cause or disorder or
other, tends 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 or worry that, "tempus fugit et ephemera ad fenestra dissolvet", time flies and ephemera
by the window 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. To use words like "every" and "always" can be as extensive as any this, that, and the
other 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 a turn in bad metaphysics and alchemy besides, where it still fails to change base metals into gold. The third law of motion in the "Principia" was only in Newton's mind not the real
world, where it remains only 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, as directed to contrary parts, et cetera.
In reality and practice of applied mechanics, forces are rather unique results in genera, and of definite species. Actual forces are traced 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. 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 leave home without it. Therefore, like little limit curves of infinity, 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
If each brick in a building weighs a few pounds, it does not mean that the building weighs a
few pounds. What is true of some part may not be true of the whole, and heliocentrism can be disproved 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 all, fair knowledge is in the principles and does not have to be pretentious or difficult.
As the psalmist says, first and last and between, "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, perhaps for the obsessed, and not really possible by any means of convenience. For however the eternal
recurrence of all things could be, it is forever inconvenient and out of size when considered in terms of simple acts; it is not something possible in simple actuality because absolute infinity is indivisible and cannot be fathomed by multiplying however many much of so many. Logic confirms that infinity cannot be strung together or reprised
by connecting and accumulating things, no matter how many they would be.
Perhaps then 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 of division, or what it means to keep waiting, since all mental projections are not corresponding with reality.
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 in the form is also in the quantity,
yet "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 and the wings of anisotropy. It follows Einstein and the system of relativity with a bag of crystals; and, when
it penetrates ethics, the way of 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 that which 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 in the principle of zero.
As only mechanistic parts of relativity and modernist physics, birds would not have a feather only a situation.
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, like this that and the other that would be operating here and there with limited and particular qualifications, in unique cases of charge, valence, impetus, momentum, stability, assimilation,
and design, et cetera.