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.
Galileo had the mischief to develop the staged background for little "g", 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 themselves. 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, for outline of 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.
O mysterium cadens enim saxorum cadentium et stellarum. O the falling 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 to serve as a way into his heliocentric methodology, 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 an Earth that was obviously established and immovable, essentially at rest, and that was 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.
As 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 by heliocentric doctrine 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 and mechanistic intellectual expression, a paper tiger out of its head, with teeth only to serve false argument.
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 to lift is faster
to fall, and faster to fall is falling faster. That which is harder to lift and 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
and pianos, as much as being is to becoming.
To people who work with insurance claims and common sense, Galileo's law of falling
bodies is absurd, except for the tricky motivation and a close call 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 necessary 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 and orbiting the Sun.
For the idiocies of heliocentrism to chew gum and walk, an isotropic and instantaneous force
of cosmic and universal agency is needed: to function as a substitution principle for two fundamental and evident constants that already exist, and confirm the science of geocentrism.
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
2. law of falling bodies
3. undetectable motion of the Earth, with Copernican "invariance" and "inertial relativity", and so-called "unaccelerated motion".
examples that Galileo used to help his theory of fall were a storm cloud of hailstones, and 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 rather
manipulated pointed-feather let go in a limited vacuum of air, for a very quick, tricky, and dubious comparison. NASA famously attempted a demonstration of Galileo's law of fall, with a hammer and a pointed feather, on what was a contrived movie
set on Earth in 1971, that was supposed to be the Moon, as part of the TV dinner entertainment of the completely faked Apollo 15 Moon landings.
Rather like actual weight and the 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
Shrewd as he was, he used oxymoronic expressions like "unaccelerated motion" to disguise the claim. Clever as the serpent yet 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 alongside 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 in the same area inside a cloud, roughly enough so that they all fall together with the same velocity, whatever their weight.
Therefore, large hailstones landed on the ground at the same time as 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 and tackle 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 and tackle 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. 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 speed, when side by side, they ought to fall at the same rate when cemented together too. Therefore, a single brick should fall just
as fast as the heavier two bricks together, 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. Rather it would only be how the other ones cook the
books. Shipping, packaging, handling, and the cost of gold go up 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, 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 admit his error. He only backtracked, 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 and the 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.
"Eppur, si muove!" he would cackle and howl on 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 glories of the Sun, in so many sunny days, and an obscure telescopic discovery that Galileo would be so crazy?
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 this 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 when in combination the total weight of 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 posit the conclusion "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 a loosely contrived situation, meant to Galileo that, in order to avoid absurd judgments, logic would force the new scientism to join his conclusions. Odd as it was, this idea that all objects
fall with a velocity that is 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 trick was to confuse things by keeping the subject marginal and equivocal, using deceptive methods of equivocation and insufficiency, in
the margins and the means, with no good purpose in sight, other than to entertain himself by confusing innocent people. The correct thing to do then in response would be to look for greater clarity to avoid a backwards rendition of stupid tricks.
So take a 500 lbs. anvil then 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? 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 itself.
The truth is that there is no effective gravitational force between them. The thing is never of any practical measure as "g" other than as density, weight, mass,
pressure, and 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, as 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 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, not the feathers or the water off a duck's back; and it
does not affect the largeness of the hippopotamus or anvils, forges, fires, ping pong balls, or leaves. Dubious with the burden, it never affected any of Galileo's rocks, bricks, cannon balls, or marbles, and it is not because of gravity that broken bones
are a problem.
Cum testimonia adsunt rerum, quid opus est verbis? When evidence of the facts is present, what need is there of words?
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 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 stop or
bend light, or affect wind or clouds, or cause rain or tattoos, or affect the phototropism of sunflowers, and it does not move marbles on the parlor floor. It-that-would-be-would-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.
That-which-is-not except for theory does not affect little empids hidden in a tree's nest, no more than division by zero, or the biggest hippopotamus for all his weight, and not because he 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 a volcano.
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.
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 pine.
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?
If world scientism of the Freemasons 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 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, 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.
In a letter, Newton himself once 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 absurd theory heliocentrism cannot stand, and due to the spherical nature of the Earth, if gravity is not a lateral force, then certainly it is not a vertical one either. 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 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, 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.
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 the 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. 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 or 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 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, it falls because of its placement in space; and that is not a continuous force but something discrete, an ad hoc variable, and, therefore, not 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 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, 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, 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 on 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 Earth is not flat any more than an "oblate spheroid", which is what heliocentrism pretends. It does not have an equatorial
bulge or squeezed-in polar caps.
The hypothetical force of gravity is not an actual power that pulls, pushes, or impels things.
Build a tower and test everything, and one will see that heliocentric gravity is a hoax, and 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, and 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 earth.
When an 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 the support that
it may have have had begins to fail, it will come plummeting down to earth because of simple gravitas, from great concentration of density and weight ,which 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 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 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.
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" is an unthinking word, a circular name for some heliocentric nonsense that, for the sake of explanation in the theory of heliocentrism, is an excuse
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 Galileo, Kepler, 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" is a two-headed contradiction
in terms that work themselves out like Copernicanism: from Kepler and Galileo to Newton, and from Foucault and Fitzgerald-Lorentz to Einstein. Yet the heart, according to Empedocles and others, would be the seat of wisdom and understanding anyway,
not the brain, even if a man had two heads. For its trouble, first and last, the brain and its nerve may be more subjected to math fummdiddles and hypnotism. They call one thing brain washing and another thing cowardice. Empedocles figured that what is called
"thought" or "contemplation" resides in the blood that circulates around the heart, running in and out, not as much the brain: "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 tested the case in a difficult fashion for the plaintiff(s), with scalding water, and denied the claim, because when one head suffered they both screamed with
the same fear, and gave him only one seventh like the others. So the legend goes that two heads are not always better than one, and not either the ellipse over the circle.
Far away in another sort of Lee Marvin movie, like Gorky Park or Emperor of the North, a chimera appeared, one with the face of a lovely woman and the feet and tail of a reptile. She was a monstrous confusion
of science, but she confessed in a reedy voice, "when one has had its bugs inside the brains, heliocentrism is nothing more than a poor old fool's cabin fever, and 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 her hand 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 is like a curse." Skunk scent and smoke come out of 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 they have of interpreting
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 when the illusions of Copernicus and theoretical scientism would be lifted, the word "gravity" would still apparently continue to have some significance as a convenient term of popular usage. It
is easy to know what people like Jack Nicklaus and Johhny Miller mean when they say "gravity", even though it is said with little sense of clarity of qualification in the term, when people talk about "gravity golf", for example.
For practical reasons, 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.