"Cum calculo mundatus ignito", cleaned with a burning coal, and in quale quid for some sense of the what how. In quale quid refers to the logic and predication
of cause and effect and means "in how the what". An important question sometimes how the what is, 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 it is so common, according to theory, that it is supposedly 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
... how special yet common by any standard, since division or multiplication by one does not affect anything, even by the inverse squared.
Things that are not in existence 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. Things that are not have the same effect
on things that are as the so-called "universal force of gravitation by the inverse squared" and multiplication or division by one.
In the meantime, for the ways of nil, have they not noticed
that it is obvious to everyone that the Earth is not moving, and that the Sun orbits the Earth: and Newton's laws are seriously flawed, not only
in observational evidence but in logic as well, because events that are simultaneous in time do not represent any common causal relation.
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, with no clear way of simplification except for spooks.
As he concludes his theory, he sounds obscure like an occultist, like an Eliphas Levi, writing about "the Spirit" and spirits. Almost like an incantation or a chain letter at the end, after so many unreadable passages,
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)
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". Thus it is merely assumed and treated as though it is not completely imaginary and not debased error. 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 intellegence, 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 and variously charged fields and clouds, and are overabundant, almost everywhere, yet their existence by mere accumulation alone is not
enough to give rise to form. Particles and atoms 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, and rocks and the roots of trees go down, and clouds go up, because of nature and the admixture of adherence in the elements already, 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 gravitational attraction 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 in within different circles as merely a coextensive attribute of being, not as a generative force. 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 that is invested in their self-defense, the defenders of heliocentrism today
admit 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, the only experience of it in occurrence among scientists is indirectly through abstract theory.
Weaker than a tiny little kitten or the
world's smallest 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 ingredient mixtures, 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 that they would supposedly represent among
other things, or their supposed functions. There is not any charge 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 charge however small has ever been settled exchanging gravity. So where is it then?
How did it escape completely the power of money
and industrial commercialization?
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 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.
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? "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?
of Minoa, late 2nd millenium BC, wrote, "with a broken arrow or a broken string, the bow is lost. Life is full of strings and tension, and there was another day of opportunity that I might have had, but I am
having this one."
If interactive things are not created or destroyed, how are they in opposition to cause differing results -- the creative or the destructive? 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.
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 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.
One of the careless predictions subsequent of the second law working over the first, yet with the first, would be "that the truth is less likely to be believed than is fiction."(15) In a cynical yet similar way, as if it were
a secret combination if 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."
the two laws combine, they become like a duality and disorder in Murphy's Law: if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong ... in both cases. Formally, if the second law could not create the
second law, how could it not, however, destroy the first and then itself, for the sake of entropy? If a broken vase cannot begin to destroy itself by itself, or set itself up to be 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?
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, other than following division by zero, where all numbers turn out equal? 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 violent and stupid destruction, what happened to the barbarian who later lost his own life for smashing it to so many pieces?
law of thermodynamics would even say that it does not matter what day or time it is: the same arrangements can always be made at another time and place, and achieve the same results later. If not this now or then, then later for the same, and no worries from
now, 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, and things that have not fit in, from one cause or disorder of another, 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 talking about the power hidden in many reflections, since every reflection has its reflection, and the "Principia" sounds like Newtonian metaphors in deep complications and mirrors, for a sort of pre-Socratic and occult monism: the glyph monad of John Dee from 123 years before, the Monas Hieroglyphica, 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. Things are 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".
than gravity, as much as wind over water is different from wind over concrete, "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; and by so many things the innumerable complexity of it is everywhere, even in the air and the luminiferous aether. As teleological, efficient, and formal as the CMB dipole, and the amplitude of the plenum, if not as eminent as 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.
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)
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.
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,
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, that is 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 many parts. Infinity cannot be strung together or reprised
by connecting and accumulating parts, no matter how many they would be.
Perhaps one could insist that an eternal recurrence of all things is possible in the potential sense of 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.
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," because that which is absolutely infinite cannot be made more perfect.(19)
mechanistic system at the root is based on the fallacy that all numbers are equal and that division by zero would have some meaningful result. This is a problem that reappears in heliocentrism like pop goes the weasel of anisotropy. It follows Einstein and
the system of relativity, and, when it penetrates ethics, it 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 abstraction and equality of division, as only mechanistic parts of relativity and modernist Newtonian 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,
and in unique cases of charge, impetus, stability, and design, et cetera.