In the crazy world of heliocentric physics, besides big G as a supposed constant force, there is little "g" as another supposed
Little g would represent the gravitational force and attraction of the Earth itself, especially that at and aroud the Earth's surface, and distinguished from the supposed universal
gravitational constant big G. It also is said to be approximated by the rate of free fall acceleration of all objects that fall around the Earth. The nominal average value of "g" at the Earth's surface, known as standard gravity, is by definition 9.80665 m/s2
(32.1737 ft/s2). This quantity is denoted variously as gn, ge, g0, gee, or simply g. Standard gravity, or standard acceleration due to free fall, then, would represent the nominal acceleration of an object in a vacuum of air near the surface of the Earth,
due to the supposed pull of gravitation.
It is reckoned today that the velocity of a free falling body in air near the surface of the Earth is due to the combined effects of the force of gravity
and centrifugal acceleration (i.e., impetus). It is conventionally assumed that on Earth all objects fall with a standard value of acceleration of 9.80665 m/s2 (approx. 32.174ft/s2), due to gravity. Therefore, to simplify problems with falling
objects around the Earth, the "gravitational force" of the Earth, "g", may be set equal to 9.8 or 10 m/s^2, when rounded off.
Following Galileo's counterfactual law of falling bodies, and his theory
of universal gravity, it is supposed that g does not vary with height or weight during a fall, and that there is a constant rate of acceleration among all objects falling around the earth, except for atmospheric affects of friction. Therefore, by the distance
and time formula for free falling bodies, d = 1/2gt^2, it is said that a constant rate of acceleration is reasonably assumed. So if a little green cooking apple, a Flower of Kent like the one that fell on Newton's head, were dropped from 25 stories, a text
book could teach that it should take 4 seconds to fall because of "g".
If assumed that each floor is about ten feet, with a little space left over here and there along the way, 25 stories could
be about 257.218 feet or 78.4 meters. A time of 4 seconds is equal to [2(78.4 meters)/g]^1/2, and corresponds to t = (2d/g)^1/2.
It was Galileo's mischief to develop the staged background for little "g9.8", as an
actual and supposedly continuous force; and it is the most peculiar ingredient of the equation for distance and time (d=1/2gt^2 or t=(2d/g)^1/2) given for bodies in vertical free fall acceleration. Ridiculous as it was, the old cock developed this formula
to fit his theory by rolling marbles and metal balls down ramps, and dropping garbage and cannon balls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa; but the equation is more than a buck short, since it makes no allowance for variations in weight or density of the objects
Rate of density in the atmosphere would be considered, as friction affecting the results, while density in the cannon ball itself is dismissed. And the formula ignores maximum acceleration
attained by different weights from different altitudes, since every weight naturally reaches a maximum velocity in free fall, all other things being equal, and a finite weight cannot accelerate infinitely.
As a sort of basic illustration, gained from rolling marbles or metal balls down ramps, to outline an abstract theory, the formula d = 1/2gt^2 may be okay; but it puts no limit on velocity increasing ad infinitum by t^2,
and with no proper regard for the significance of actual speciation in weight and density in the first place. A finite weight cannot accelerate infinitely; and the formula is really only saying 5 meters times whatever seconds squared for everything, no
matter what it is. Since "g" is 9.8m/s^2, it is around 10m/s^2, which is simplified as 4.9 or 5 meters, as t^2 is left from (s^2)^2.
In the case of the falling apple of 25 stories, 4 seconds squared times 5 meters equals 80, with rounding off for simplification, close enough to 78.4 meters. Therefore, the distance in meters, or displacement force of "g", is
approximately as simple as 5 times whatever seconds of fall squared, from rocks and fish tanks to stars and objects of whatever size for anvils.
O mysterium enim saxorum cadentium et stellarum.
O the mystery of falling rocks and stars ...
The formula method of Galileo may seem convenient to many indoctrinated into the ways of heliocentrism, but it leaves the full complexity of distance,
time, and velocity of weights interposed in vertical free fall a little short. And, of course, it was made from an ulterior motive anyway.
After rolling marbles down tricky ramps and other
lab work shenanigans, Galileo created the equation strictly as a way to serve his heliocentric method, and to prop up "gravity" as a continuous and aethereal force in physics: the occult action-at-a-distance sine qua non. As natural theories of motion
referred themselves to a stationary Earth that was obviously a simple and authentic inertial frame of reference, Galileo and heliocentrism had to develop alternative and "relative" ... and more complex rather than authentic ... theories of motion and physics.
Galileo's theory of the constant force of gravity, and his false law of falling bodies were early and important parts of this program.
His absurd law of falling bodies would represent
that the speed of a falling body is independent of its weight, density, and mass, and that under the influence of gravity alone all bodies fall with equal acceleration. Thus, according to Galileo, if gravity is the only force acting on a weight in free fall,
its fall can be described as uniformly accelerated by the "force of gravitation" alone, and then the acceleration of falling bodies is the same for all of them, each second during which any of them falls.
though the motion of any body would be purely independent of the body itself, which it never is and cannot be --- no matter the situation or altitude. Yet for Galileo the hypothetical sameness of falling would not be independent of the envelope of atmospheric
affects, including density, which would be called "friction". It is okay, therefore, according to Galileo, to note density or occlusion of the atmosphere, or friction of the path, but not of the object itself, the thing in itself, das Ding an sich.
However much confusion for analysis, this sort of ridiculous game is kept up even today, because "gravity", as a continuous force, is needed to explain the crazy theory of heliocentrism in the first place.
Remember that it is said that the Sun is driving the Earth around it in revolving orbits of tremendous astronomical force, even if without wings, because of gravity. But like heliocentrism itself, upon closer examination, so called "gravity" really turns out
to be only an abstract expression, a paper tiger out of its head, with teeth only to serve false argument.
For the unavoidable fact is that heavier weights do accelerate more in free fall. Indeed
they fall faster, and the bigger they come, the harder they fall. Every mover worth any ergonomic salt knows that what is heavier and harder to lift is faster to fall, and faster to fall is falling faster. That which is more difficult to move because of its
weight will also fall more rapidly from a tall building than other things that are lighter. Lifting is to falling, as falling is to lifting, for feathers, bowling balls, and pianos, as much as being is to becoming.
"The bigger the aircraft, the greater the prop wash," as bigger the boat greater the wake.(65)
who work with insurance claims and common sense, Galileo's law of falling bodies is absurd, except for the tricky motivation and close calls in the margins. And just as gravity as a constant force is needed for the theory of heliocentrism, so the law of falling
bodies is needed for gravity to insinuate any sense of activity. As a strangely mechanistic, unitary, and perpetual force of cosmic order within heliocentrism, gravity must act uniformly. It must act constantly, homogeneously, isotropically, and instantaneously,
otherwise it would not be universal and so cosmic, and it would have nothing to do with why the Earth could supposedly be flying around in space and orbiting the Sun.
For the idiocies of heliocentrism
to chew gum and walk, an isotropic and instantaneous force of universal agency is needed to function as a substitution principle for two fundamental and self-evident constants that already exist, and confirm the science of geocentrism.
1. the immobility of the Earth and
2. the constant proportionality between qualities and elements.
Little g and big G would substitute a deceptive
calculus for the already evident balance and harmony of the Earth that is not moving.
Three components of Galileo's system of false substitution were:
1. gravity as a universal force
2. law of falling bodies
3. undetectable motion of the Earth, with Copernican "invariance" and "inertial relativity", and so-called "unaccelerated motion".
To help his theory of fall, Galileo used two disingenuous examples, first, a storm cloud of hailstones, and second,
two or more weights attached by a rope. A third example, that came later with the invention of the air pump in 1650 (Galileo passed away 1642), is a coin and pointed-feather manipulated in a limited vacuum of air, for a very quick and dubious comparison. NASA
famously attempted a demonstration of Galileo's law of fall, with a hammer and a pointed feather, on what was supposed to be the surface of the Moon, but was a contrived movie set on Earth
in 1971, as part of the TV dinner entertainment of the completely faked Apollo 15 Moon landings.
Rather like actual weight and structure of materials, aerodynamics will affect rate of fall in the
margins, yet it is not due to "universal gravity" that broken wings do not fly.
Since he taught that due to universal gravitation objects with different weights, even
with identical aerodynamics and surface volume, do not fall at different rates, within gradations of particular force due to specifically different weights, Galileo looked cleverly as he could to explain a few confusing conversational examples.
Shrewd as he was, he used oxymoronic expressions like "unaccelerated motion" to disguise the claim. Clever as the serpent but not innocent like a dove, for conversation he would say, for instance, that hailstones come
in many different sizes, and they all reach the ground together. If heavier weights with greater density fall faster, the heavier hailstones would have to be manufactured higher up in a storm cloud than the smaller and lighter ones ... and exactly the
right distance higher up so that they reached the ground together with the lighter ones formed at lower altitudes. It seemed rather unlikely to him that the hailstones thrown from a storm cloud were being manufactured at different altitudes, so he said
a much simpler explanation is that all hailstones are made virtually in the same area inside a cloud, roughly enough so that they all fall together with the same velocity, whatever their weight.
large hailstones landed on the ground alongside the smaller ones, because all free falling objects accelerate equally due to the "force of gravity" alone, even independently of weight, and, therefore again, at the same uniform speed in free fall: t=(2d/g)^1/2.(1)
But when ships caught in storms at sea, and in grave danger of sinking, dump the heavier cargo first, to keep the ship afloat, it is because sinking is to falling as falling is to sinking. Nobody on a ship
in serious trouble under a dangerous storm on a bad sea wastes any time with Galileo's false law of falling bodies, "that all weights fall with a uniform rate due to the force of gravity". Sailors in hazards throw away the heavier cargo first, no
questions asked, for there is more buoyancy in air and water with things that are lighter; but, according to Galileo, throw a few sunflowers overboard to help save the ship, and it is as good as throwing out a crate of bowling balls. And for the earth to orbit
the sun, the quantity and density in the weight does not matter according to gravitation, and gravitation does not matter according to the things themselves.
He also reasoned that if two bricks
of the same weight and size fall at the same rate, when side by side, it should be the same force when cemented together too. Therefore, a single brick should fall just as fast as the heavier two bricks together, pari passu, and so on with as many as there
could be in a bag, or at a construction site. However, Galileo's principle of equivalence is not how honest companies do business, because the principle in the connection matters. Shipping, packaging, handling, and the cost of gold go up per se with increase
of weight, and it is not all equivalent in the itemizations. Two bars of gold cost more to buy and to ship than one. Even if they have an offer of two for one, the two for one bargain still costs more than the one. It is impossible to escape costs, even for
a free lunch, and two is more than one, and three is more than two, and so it goes ad infinitum.
Besides accountants and clerks at the post office, many reasonable people have disagreed with the
yonder ways of Galileo. When honest investigators have taken the time to conduct tests of falling bodies, their weights and measures, they have always discovered that heavier weights do accelerate more and fall faster. It is scientifically provable and repeatable,
as much one day follows another, and the weeks add up 52 for a year.
One story is that Galileo and some peripatetic (old school) professors dropped various cannon balls and melons from the Leaning
Tower of Pisa, and Galileo was clearly proven wrong, poco a poco. The heavier cannon balls always landed sooner, but even then Galileo would not relent and admit his error. He only manuevered again, stiffened the neck, retrenched, and claimed it was because
of discongruities in air resistance between them, and that the differences in fall between heavier cannonballs and lighter melons were so relatively small overall, and not nearly so great as the differences in their actual weights. It could only be air resistance
in the results, friction in the atmospheric affects, therefore, that made for the disparities; and besides, he would say, overall the sum total in errors of the old school Aristotelians were egregious in comparison with his. Their mistakes were much greater
and more emabrrassing, certainly, because they still insisted like cave men that the Sun orbited the Earth and the Earth was not moving.
si muove!" he would cackle and howl, and turn to go his way home. "Nevertheless, it moves", he would murmur in the rain, imagining the Earth moves with an unaccelerated motion because of the Sun. Was it only because of the bright glare of the midday Sun, in
so many sunny days, and an obscure telescopic discovery that Galileo would be so crazy?
For one last illustration, think for
a moment, Galileo would say, that if it was true that the heavier the object the faster its fall, what would happen if some small rocks and a big rock were tied together individually, rock-and-rope to rock-and-rope, like a spider's web, with some slack in
the chords joining them, and they were thrown from the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa ... some other day?
On the one hand, the tied-together littler rocks would fall slower than the big rock
alone, lagging behind the big one, and slowing it down, bogging its descent down in the air; but on the other, the tied-together collection should fall faster, if they were enough to prove that the Earth moves, because added together they would constitute
a greater weight.
Yet the sort of argumentation peculiar to Galileo would intuit that in free fall the lighter rocks accelerate less and fall behind the heavier, and that since the littler rocks
are individually tied to the bigger one, they slow the bigger one down piece by little piece. This would be from a discrete not continuous influence, from rock to rock, which contradicts the theory of gravitation, as "the chords would lose slack
from the smaller rocks dragging behind the bigger rock, not the bigger rock moving ahead," or vice versa.
The bigger one added to the littler ones represents more weight than the bigger one
by itself; yet the combination of total weight for the rocks together, which is greater, is falling slower in free fall, than the bigger one would by itself, since the littler ones slow it down. So a greater total weight in combination would be falling
slower than an isolated lighter one. Therefore, Galilean relativity would say "that all objects fall at the same rate, due to gravitation, regardless of their weight."(2) So on an so forth, alwaysthemore nevertheless, from sand pebbles and diamonds to
cannon balls and beach balls and the feathers of a bird.
This sort of convoluted distortion of coincidental, accidental,
and marginal means, from loosely contrived situations, meant to Galileo that in order to avoid absurd judgments logic would force the new scientism to join his conclusions. Odd as it was, the idea that all objects fall with a velocity equally independent
of their weights was crucial to the theory of gravity. For if Galileo's law of fall should fail, then so would the theory of gravity; and that would be the end of the theoretically mechanistic mephisto-basis of heliocentrism in the first place.
Galileo's sophomoric tricks to confuse things by keeping the subject marginal, using deceptive methods of equivocation and insufficiency, with no good purpose in sight, must have been an entertainment to
himself for confusing innocent people. The correct thing to do then in response would be to look for greater clarity than the means to avoid a backwards rendition of stupid tricks.
So take a 500
lbs. anvil and a dozen ping pong balls and drop them tied together in long chords (pinning the ping pong balls to ends of thin ropes) and then separately. Either way it will become evident that heavier weights do accelerate more and fall faster, and where
would the mysterious power of gravity be in that repertoire? The so-called force of gravitation is not of any significance in the anvil, the ping pong balls, or the rope, other than in the very weight of the item in question itself.
The truth is that there is no effective gravitational force between them. Little "g(9.8)"is never of any practical measure other than as density, weight, mass, pressure, and design for the nexus of connection collected
between air compressors and bricks, for instance. Situated around many different circles and vectors of space, with specific qualifications of elemental structure and design, they exist poco a poco. At most only a coextensive attribution of things, around
and all over in circles, the practical significance of it in physics would be nil, except for the discretion and properties of impetus and acceleration of momentum in vertical free fall, and already in the structure and design of things like inertia.
Gravitation by the inverse squared is not affecting big birds or little ones, and not the feathers or the water off a duck's back, any
more than it does not affect the largeness of the hippopotamus or anvils, forges, fires, ping pong balls, or leaves. Dubious with the burdens of proof, it never affected any of Galileo's rocks, bricks, cannon balls, or marbles, and it is not for gravity that
broken bones can be such a problem.
Cum testimonia adsunt rerum, quid opus est verbis? When evidence of the facts is present, what need is there of words?
Between the weakest and most undetectable force of physics, that cannot move the tiniest refrigerator magnet, or a marble on a glass table at midnight in the open air of a full moon, and between absolute level zero, where there would
be nothing at all, if it could fit some place, except for the void of the abyss, is where there would be the greatest concentration of the power of "gravity". There where it is effectively pure zero, between the salt water and the sea strand, where
it always disappears, up in smoke, is where the force of gravity would be.
"Observe, measure, verify: here's the business of the scientist"(3), and gravity does not push, pull, or bend light, or affect wind, clouds, or rain, or the phototropism of sunflowers; and it does not move marbles across the parlor floor. It-that-would-be-would-that-it-were-but-is-not does not affect the wandering
albatross in flight over the sea, or give an anvil made of helium that special lift. Natural creaturely exhaustion and boredom affect large birds in flight, not gravity. A wandering albatross, Diomedea exulans, could continue flying on the wind forever, and
never be affected by gravity. Newton's inverse square does not affect a wing or feather in flight any more than the wind or clouds. A condor finally lands on a tree on a mountain because of its own natural repertoire in the interstices of exhaustion and
ease, boredom and habit, not because of gravity.
No more than division by zero, that-which-is-not
except for the theory does not affect even the littlest empids hidden in trees, or the biggest hippopotamus for all his weight, and
not because the hippo does not have wings. A hippopotamus rests in his warren of lake, river, or pond many hours of the day, because of the simple beneficial bouyancy of water, not because of gravity, or ice cubes frozen inside volcanoes.
If the scientism would quit the deception, and one day it took a great hippo and a condor, instead of enough rocks, and tied them together to test Galileo's law of fall from the steepness of a mountain cliff, they
would discover that Galileo's law of fall and the heliocentric theory of gravity are misfigured. After tossed from the edge, the condor tied to the hippo could not fly, not because of gravity but because the hippopotamus was so gigantic and heavy. The hippo
would plummet to the ground also, not because of gravity, but because air is too rarefied to support him without wings (without wings a gooney bird cannot fly and neither can a hippo) as air lacks the more resilient buoyancy and relaxing support of a body
of water on the surface of the earth.
Gravity is not what brings them crashing to the ground, the condor tied to the hippo for a bloody mess in science; and if an attached hippopotamus cannot bring
a condor or wandering albatross to the ground because of gravity, then nothing can.
If on another day, the hippopotamus had tried to rest in a pine tree instead, to sing a little song, he would
break the branches not because of gravity but because of the lack of structural support for his weight in the branches. When he came crashing down, it would not have had anything to do with gravity. The commotion would have been all between him and the little
If the power of gravity does not affect an anvil made of pure concentrated helium, as it floats in the wind, when
dropped from 25 stories, how does it affect one made of styrofoam or balsa wood, or another made of lead and steel plate, any more than a llama (lama glama)?
If world scientism of the Judeo-Masonic
conspiracy took a 1,200 lbs. anvil made of lead and steel plate, and another of the same spatial volume and exterior design, but made only from a thin yet firm shell of balsa wood, all hollow on the inside, and then a third of the same volume and design
as the other two, but made from a very light durable balloon, filled with pure helium, and then dropped them from 25 stories high, they would obey Galileo's false law of falling bodies and his false law of gravity?
Of course not, not more than kites or Kitty Hawk, where the heaviest anvil would hit the ground first, and the helium one would fly away with the wind, as a hippopotamus who wants to fly could only dream. If gravity is not a force between
three anvils and marbles, hippopotami, clouds, birds, ants and the wind, then it is not a force between NASA and the Sun and the Moon either.
In a letter, Newton himself confessed that it "is ... so great an absurdity" to teach that "gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the
mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another ... that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."(4) Yet without the absurdity heliocentrism
fails at all points due to the spherical nature of the Earth. If gravity is not a lateral force, then certainly it is not a vertical one either; and between x,y, and z and the logic in geometry, gravity loses its hand.
A 1,200 lbs. anvil made of lead, dropped at the Eiffel Tower from a height of 25 stories, or from higher up at the top, (2"21'03E), will fall straight
down vertically toward the point of its longitude and latitude in Paris, with very little affect from the wind. It would have to be a strong wind indeed to move it like styrofoam. But if scientism drops another 1,200 lbs. anvil from 25 stories in Jefferson
City, Missouri (92"10'25W) or Norilsk, Russia (88"13'02E), at the same time, lateral lines vice versa are beginning to be formed to the Eiffel Tower. Even as purely vertical accelerations continue from up to down, and gravity around the earth, little
"g (9.8)", would then be acting sideways to Paris, which it does not.
None of the 1,200 lbs anvils dropped in Paris, Jefferson City, or Norilsk
would move horizontally at all to the development of acceleration in free fall, due to the presupposed "force of gravity". Yet the falling weights in Norilsk and Jefferson City are moving sideways to the ones in Paris, due to the spherical
curvature of the Earth. At any 90 degrees turn to the sides, all around in another circle, in any sphere like the Earth, the vertical line of the place before, from another center, becomes the horizontal, and the spherical shape of space becomes an unsolvable
problem for "gravity".
Looking at the whole picture objectively, all in 3-D, in the great sphere of space, the idea of Newtonian
gravitation acting universally by the inverse squared becomes unsustainable, since up or down in a true sphere, as much as sideways, is an arbitrary distinction, as much as north or south, and east or west. So if gravity is not a lateral force, then it is
not vertical either. The sideways to the vertical, and vice versa, in simple terms of the spherical nature of space, represent labels given in terms of the order of position not from the primary
form of substance.
With space, as much as real estate and geometry, they say it is location, location, location, yet location
by itself does not constitute a hypothetical force like gravity, any more than weight by itself constitutes a source of motion. The theory of gravity argues for a continuous force but specific locations and types of heaviness are discrete. If it were true,
what Newton, Kepler, and Galileo taught, gravity would not operate only because it is here or there specifically, but rather because it is supposedly everywhere.
According to the theory,
gravity around the Eiffel Tower does not work at the place because it is Paris. However, in contradiction of Newtonian theory, whatever falls from it does fall because of the place, as much as the placement. The results are discrete not continuous if an anvil
falls from the tower; and it falls because of the placement in space, an ad hoc variable, and, therefore, not as a result of supposed gravitational pull from the Earth. Anvils that fall through the sky are like the mail: they do not fall from everywhere,
and are not continuous but discrete, and the mail that gets delivered is not from gravity either.
Since all three locations
are north of the equator at different parallels, (Jefferson City 38"34"36N, Paris 48"51"24N, Norilsk 69"20"00N) and the distance between Paris and them is less than exactly one quarter of the circumference of the earth, the example is not quite perfect,
yet the point is still the same as when taken from a tall tower set directly over the center of the North pole. From a tower set directly over the north pole, every vertical drop of a heavy rock represents a lateral acceleration to every point of meridian
along the equator --- through all the degrees, minutes, and seconds of arc around the earth. Then from any tower on the earth, at any 90 degree turn, there is a similar "equatorial" umbrella of lateral lines --- formed at all points in a circle 6,225.5
miles or so away.
Since "gravity" is weaker than all forces we are able to experience directly, and little "g(9.8") is
only a hypothetical radial force emitted from the Earth itself, even in theoretical physics, then, if it is not a horizontal force, when charged up by the displacement of a 1,200 lbs anvil in free fall acceleration, it is not a vertical one either, because
the Earth, like the cosmos itself, is all around a sphere.
When a golfer makes a golf ball drop, to follow the rules, he does not move the ball sideways. He lets it drop along the vertical
only by "gravity". So people watching should admit that gravity is not a transverse force, but strictly a vertical one, even according to the rules of golf.
However, since the Earth and the cosmos
are spheres, gravity cannot be an exclusively vertical force, if it were universal. The only way that gravity could be an exclusively vertical force is if the earth were flat. And let it be emphasized that the world is not flat any more than an "oblate
spheroid", as the Earth does not have an equatorial bulge or squeezed-in polar caps either, which is what heliocentrism pretends.
The hypothetical force of gravity is not an actual power that pulls, pushes, or impels things. Build a tower and test everything. One will see that heliocentric gravity is a hoax. The displacement force of
a 1,200 lbs anvil dropped in free fall from the top of the Eiffel Tower does not come from "gravity", which has never been discovered to spin anything at 1038 mph, much less the equator every day with perfect timing for so many years --- with nobody ever being
able to notice, except for the detectable undetectable "unaccelerated" rotation of the calendar of the world.
anvil set on the platform of a tower needs support, because of its heavy concentration ofweight and density, it is not because of any force of gravitation pulling it down to earth. And there is no force of gravitation that will push the anvil up, or away
from the earth, or around it like the moon either. If an anvil elevated in a tower lacks sufficient structural support, or if the support that it may have begins to fail, it will come plummeting down to earth because of simple gravitas, from concentration
of density and weight that are too much for air, not because of any occult action-at-a-distance from the so-called force of gravitation emitted to it from the earth.
Supposedly universal, gravity is not based strictly on location or actual weight of objects involved, but on the would-be-continuous effect of the hypothetical force itself, which would have a homogeneous distribution,
of isometry by the inverse squared, yet without forming any lateral lines around the surface of a sphere. If the so-called force does not signal at all along any horizontal lines around the Earth, then it is not isotropic but geometrically discrete and fractional
in one direction down. But being discrete and broken only along the vertical line of fall, only going down to the center like a rock off a cliff, does not fit the theory. The drop from a cliff is not what makes things in the universe go round and round.
Rather it appears very restricted from point to point, for what would be a universal force, when one considers that the line of vertical
descent represents less than 1/360 (.0027) of a circle, and less than 1/8640 (.000115740) of a sphere divided into 24 circles. Gravity would have that small of a fractional part of the world of motion around all points across the surface of the Earth, while
impetus and momentum have the rest. It becomes apparent with examination, therefore, that impetus, in fact, not gravity, also has the line of vertical descent; and by simple geometry, impetus and momentum in quale quid take the whole circle and sphere of motion
away from "universal gravity".
Like Huygens principle, every original motion is some form of wave propagation, and not
because of any force of Newtonian gravitation the ground floors of heavy high rise buildings are not built out of balsa wood. It is because of the concentrations of density and material strength that exist in the weight, design, structure, and quality of
center in things. Gravity is not moving objects around the earth or out in space, not tap tapping at windows or knocking on walls late at night, and not bumping, ruffling, or closing doors. Anything that moves or is opened or closed is moved by a motive
principle of impetus that must be formed and materialized within the structure and design of the elements, and that is not gravity.
it is weaker than all forces we are able to experience directly, no one can tell that the earth revolves, "because of gravity". As well, no one can tell that anything that has moved or is in motion is "because of gravity", or "gravitation". "Gravity" represents
the case of an unthinking word, a circular name for some heliocentric nonsense that, for the sake of explanation in the theory of heliocentrism, is an excuse for motion.
In the "Third Spiritual Alphabet", Francisco de Osuna wrote of the case of a two-headed man who could not have been far different from Kepler, Galileo, Newton, or Einstein and the school of heliocentrism and relativity.
"Now if a two-headed man wanted to become a Christian, it would have to be determined before baptizing him if he had two wills and if
so, that would imply two souls, in which case they would have to christen each head with a different name, and, afterwards, if the one displayed a wicked, perverse will and the other a good one, the first would be damned and the second saved, God carrying
off one half of the body, the devil, the other. I do not know how to judge people with two hearts except to recall the example of the two-headed man and on that basis give him the double name 'Monk Of-the-world'."(5)
The "Monk Of-the-world" of the divided heart is a two-headed contradiction in terms that would work themselves out for science like Copernicanism: from Kepler and
Galileo, to Newton and Foucault, to Fitzgerald-Lorentz and Einstein. Yet the heart, according to Empedocles and others, would be the seat of wisdom anyway, with understanding to guide the brain, even if a man had two heads, and they were both sorely confused.
For the trouble of thinking too much, the brain and its nerves may be math-fummdiddled and hypnotised more than a good clean heart.
They call one thing brain washing and another thing cowardice.
Empedocles figured that what is called "thought" or "contemplation" resides chiefly in the blood that circulates around the heart, running in and out: "for the blood round the heart is the thought of men".(6) And having two hearts, "one contrary to the other",
is a "condition that is worse than having two noses or tongues," or even two heads with two brains.(7)
An actor should be able to concoct the universe in the palm of his hand, but "woe to
the man with a double heart, and the sinner who enters the land by two roads": Vae duplici corde et peccatori terram ingredienti duabus viis.(8)
And "woe to them who have lost patience, and who
have forsaken the right ways, and have gone aside into crooked ones": Vae his qui perdiderunt sustinentiam, qui dereliquerunt vias rectas, et deverterunt in vias pravas."(9)
There is a legend from
King Solomon of a two-headed man who fathered seven children. His first six children were mono-capite and received one seventh of the inheritance, but there was also a double-headed son who came to Solomon's court and demanded a double portion, since
he argued that he could be for two as well as one.
Solomon decided to test the case in a difficult way for the plaintiff(s), with scalding water, and denied the claim, because when one head suffered
they both screamed with the same fear. Since the court gave him only one seventh like the others, and he was burned besides, the legend goes that two heads are not always better than one, and not either the ellipse over the circle.
Then far away in bubbles of time and space, in a Lee Marvin movie like Gorky Park or Emperor of the North, but sci-fi, a chimera appeared: one with the face
of a lovely woman and a rubied diadem, yet the feet of a buzzard and tail of a serpent. She was a monstrous confusion of arcane knowledge, and confessed in a reedy voice, that "when one has had its bugs inside the brains, heliocentrism is nothing more than
a poor old fool's cabin fever: the suffering headaches of a two-headed man." She laughed derisively in the high pitch of a witch, "ha, ha, ha -- a rendezvous with idiot calculations, complex falsities, and sophomoric disingenuity, one against the other". Like
the hands of a chimera hidden in a typical science book, they write: "the pull of gravity on Mars is considerably less than that on the Earth; as a matter of fact, a man weighing 180 pounds on Earth would weigh only 68 pounds on Mars, and Soviet astronomers
say that the Martian atmosphere contains the same amount of oxygen that we have in high mountain regions on Earth."(10)
"Out you tainted spot! Out!" he cried. "Depravity exults. Science is impudent
with poisonous fumes. The sulphuric air of it burns like a curse." Skunk scent and smoke come out the ears, and the globe and scepter of the fiend of the spinning and flying earth are obnoxious to anyone who would save common sense. In the real world
of physics, the theory of heliocentrism cannot make it across the street even for all the wrong ways to interpret the data. It does not do anything from here to Mars or Antares more than a chimera. There is no smoke, percolation, or engine exhaust that
comes from any honest part of it.
Yet illusions may be as numerous perhaps as the relationships among things and words, but when the illusion disappears, that is when the essence or fact is seen
such as it exists, the mind may experience "a strange feeling, complicated partly by regret for the vanished phantom, partly by a pleasant surprise before the new, before the real fact."(11) And when the illusions of Copernicus and theoretical scientism
would be lifted, even the word "gravity" would still apparently continue to have some popular usage as a convenient term.
Without being strange, it is easy to know what people like
Jack Nicklaus and Johhny Miller mean when they say gravity, when talking about "gravity golf", for example. Even though it is said with little sense of clarity or qualification in the term, understanding
that it has nothing to do with why the Moon and Sun circle the Earth, the word still expresses a practical lesson in golf.
For practical reasons then, due to ingrained habits of expression,
people will keep using the word "gravity", but it only refers to an ontological property of things taken together, as they are and of themselves, collected in synthesis of the qualities and elements. The reference is a slight tautology of nature, of a coextensive
attribute of being, evident for comparison in physics, logic, and math, et cetera. When things are very heavy with some concentrated density and force or vector, that would be one way to say a lot of gravity for the weight of things involved.