how you spell? i want the last name. say again.

"Who else knows what we know, Jerry"?

Dr. Jonas, Conspiracy Theory

 

"If I have any appeal at all, it's to the fellow who takes out the garbage."

 

 

"Who else knows what we know, Jerry"? ---- They have Jerry on some heavy C.I.A. compartmentalized drugs, but earlier Jerry exclaimed, "oh, no, you're from NASA?" The man did not acknowledge it openly, but yes, he is from NASA and some other things.

7  “Look at that moon. Potato weather for sure", said Mrs. Gibbs "and it does not rotate up there in the celestial sphere, as it beams down here ... and neither does the Earth."(1)

There is no spin zone in yonder Moon. The face does not spin around, but heliocentrism would pretend that it does, and say that it revolves around and around its axis, silver face spinning around, in perfect synchronicity with the Earth, so it always has the same one face facing the Earth, with the appearance of superb stability.

 

Uncanny, and slowly again, supposedly, it turns and turns in its gyre, as it circles the Earth. It must be so slowly, because in truth it does not look like it rotates at all, as ever so slowly it would spin like the Earth. Turning, yet always with the false impression of not turning, in its perfect crystalline sphere up there, in exact synchronicity with the unaccelerated rotations of the Earth, the Moon in its circuit up above does not really look like it rotates at all. All the time looking like it does not, should be as close to the most incredibly slow for rotation that it could get, so it must be with the most hidden turning of turnings, since it does not ever look like it anyway, and neither does the Earth, of course.

 

As far as false impressions go, in the light of a full Moon, this is a strange one, and the only next thing to say is that it is not really even there, although it may seem like it is. It is somewhere else, of course, whenever it seems to be where it is. Or it could be that it does not really exist, even though for thousands of years it may seem that it has. 

 
O wha', O wha', what a Moon, and what a way to wreck common sense and the cosmos. Not being able to recognize that it revolves about on its axis, even though it would be described as though it does, since it must, since it always has the same one face facing the Earth, which is in violent astronomical  revolution, of course, then which way is it revolving ... since no one can tell? They already have it going the wrong way overall, from West to East, rather than from East to West, so is it clockwise or counter-clockwise spin from below the silver top?
 
Abstracting away from reality, they would probably say it spins clockwise, when viewed from above its silver top, from North pole of Moon to North pole of Earth, but it could be even slower than they say, and the other way, since they cannot really tell, except for the brilliance involved. The central theory of heliocentrsim has always been that nobody can notice the Earth flying in a tremendous astronomical course about the sun anyway, because of Galileo's principle of "universal gravitation" and detectable undetectable unaccelerated motion. Yet the only evidence so far for heliocentrism has been the passage of day and night, and that alone does not provide scientific justification of a worthwhile notion at all, any more than the moons of Jupiter.
 
Direction is as important as progress, and heliocentrics admit, of course, that we are anchored to a vast geodesic inertial frame of reference, the terra firma --- tellecor --- that is steeped everywhere in a remarkable and common experience of stillness, and with a common direction of up, that goes to the stars and out into space. But since no one can notice the Earth spinning, tilting, rotating, moving, and wobbling at the poles or equator in the first place, who could ever notice any actual secondary proof of it, from any other scienctific experiment, other than the ones they already have, or the Moon? Should the great abundance of what is too plain be too profound, yet no one has been able to spot any of it so far, even with the most sophisticated tests of repetition; so out of all this, who could guess in which direction-of-axis the moon spins, when they cannot actually see the spin at all, in the first place; and they cannot even correctly ascertain which way it really goes around the Earth either?
 
Hop off the bus, Gus. Drop off the key, Lee. Make a new plan, Stan, and set yourself free. Solve vincula reis.
 
They will answer, of course, that everything is "relative", hinc inde --- to this and that, and these and those, and many complicated Ph.D. things, like Einstein and Kissinger at Harvard for a speech --- and only a medieval dimwit who has lost his mind or somebody from down South could actually believe that the sun orbits the earth, because of what he sees.
 
"Relative" in modo et figura and the most this and the most that that ever was in the world, and the best way to show that a stick is crooked is to lay a straight one alongside it. For "that which is true and better is naturally always easier to prove and more likely to persuade"(2). Like a crooked stick, heliocentrism is gone funny on the wrong side of Occam’s razor, so the evidence in question does not matter for it, succinct as it is, because the moon does not rotate; but heliocentrism pretends that it does, that it is revolves around its axis, in perfect synchronicity with the Earth, so that it always has the same face facing the Earth. 
 
It would be easier and more direct to say that the Earth does not rotate either and neither does the Moon, and that is why the Moon always has the same face towards the Earth. It is not twirling up there in the cloudy river of the sky, and the starry rivers up above go in circles around the earth, from East to West. It would be another stable aspect that shows the Earth is not revolving and going around the Sun, but that the Sun orbits the Earth.
 
Yet this is too simple to be science, if it is what it seems to be, and for the sake of appearances heliocentrism says that the Moon is turning up there in its circuit, in exact synchronicity with the Earth, even though it never looks like it. If only for vain nebulosity and mumbo jumbo of useless repetition, it could be the money in science, but should it not then be pulled out by the roots and burned? Are there better ways to be stupid at expense for the joys of astronomical irritation?
 
For instance, the celestial aspects around the Earth are always of three kinds in the fixed or the cadent. The fixed aspects are permanent in contrast to the cadent aspects that change.
 
 
In terms of the ecliptic and the Earth, there is one primary wheel that is locked in place, and two that are moving. The one that is locked has a double lock in all the places of the Earth and in objective geometry. It always is the same difference between midnight and high noon, and sunrise and sunset, from place to place around the Earth, as much as the one-to-one correspondence of Earth to outer space, and that way is not this way.
 
From any observation tower, the fixed degrees of the Earth extending into the ecliptic and then further into outer space always remain the same. The midheaven is straight away at a 90” angle from the ascendant and the descendant; and it is 180” from the immum coeli on the other side, and the major parts of the day are the same.
 
The fixed stars and wandering planets represent between them the two cadent wheels, and the changing seasons, where aspects are in motion in terms of the planets and more distant stars of the constellations; and the cadent wheels transition too slowly for it to be possible that the Earth is spinning away from under them.
 
From the surface of the Earth, where the visible planets change their positions vis-à-vis the more distant fixed stars, if the earth were orbiting the Sun, the signs they make would not last so long and loom with such vast astronomical composure. These signs last for some time, and change over days and nights, and seasons and years, not a few hours. If the earth were spinning 1038 mph into the east, they would go whizzing by in a tangled yarn; and it would be a bad sign indeed and bad luck from that moment forward, for all the poor future waiting to be.

Yet there is no moving fourth wheel from any terrestrial factor at all involved between the cadent ones of the planets and distant stars, which there should be if the Earth were moving. The primary wheel, which extends from the Earth into the depths of the cosmos, remains fixed in place under the planets and stars, and the first stability defines all the rest. These aspects in total are like many precise laser beams, that weave all around the Earth in combinations every day, in a spider's web indicating that tellecor is at the center of them, and not revolving.

As the hours add up, the combinations of all these aspects, in these three kinds of signs for universal ephemerides, add always to the proof of geocentrism, because they all tie together into a collection like a web; and in the finest details of little degrees they last for hours at a time. They change over days, months, and years and always in slow comparison with the phases of the moon. If the Earth were revolving and flying away through space at astronomical rates, from underneath them, and all the while in such immediate and contrasting proximity to the Moon, in distinct comparison to the more distant background of stars, the cosmic alignments of so many unique aspects over the days and years, in view of the Moon and its phases, would quickly become a chaotic jumble. After a little time, the wheels would spin out, coming unglued, and the cope of Heaven would go haywire for shambles.

But, of course, they do not. Rather, the signs of planets and stars work out every year, "per singulos dies", as well as the calendar, which is based on geocentrism in the first place.(3) Cosmology and the weeks are not beyond the simple science of geometry, and the nature of the universe and of geometry is in the formal quality of the aspects, of the lines and in the figures with priority, not so much about the size. A 45” angle is the same measure no matter the extension, and a cube is always a cube, as a sphere is always a sphere, and a pyramid is always a pyramid, et cetera, as logic would fill a prism, no matter the scale. And life itself is like a prism, since "what you see depends on how you turn the glass"(4).

The constellations circling overhead in the firmament through the fixed positions of Earth's sky always have the same angles between them, and always in uniform recession from the furthest outer reaches of deepest space. So they clearly must have something unique in common between them, some place fixed at the center, which happens to be the Earth.

 
 
 
 
 
II: Wherein is discovered the super-geodetic bekadek, of the bekhikagocadew, a measure of great direction, and stage of the famous 60 second drop, and so forth 
 
 
 
Like the astral apects, and the set face of the Moon in all its phases, the lines of falling objects create the same impression. Throwing a small rock up into the sky, at a steep angle over a high cliff into a lake, it takes a few seconds for the rock to fall into the water below. When separated from the Earth, moving independently of the Earth's surface, and from where it begins to fall vertically in perpendicular free fall, it has no significant forward motion, and the Earth never moves away from underneath it. "Every stone once thrown must fall"(5), and such a rock as this, even the first one out of a bag, if it were any stone of wisdom, or all the others after it, is something to reckon wisely.
 
Sling-stones and things falling to the Earth are falling to the center. If someone unfastened a chandelier from a high ballroom ceiling and, once completely loose, let it fall straight down at a 90” angle to the floor, were it not for the surface of the Earth where it lands, it would continue falling in a line straight down. Down and down it goes, and if there were a vertical tunnel 300 to 600 yards deep where the chandelier was falling, it would continue its descent to the bottom until it crashed. If the tunnel continued to the center of the Earth, it would crash there, where as with elemental density the Earth is already compactly compacted and contracted towards its center, in gravitate de hypostatis terrestris, and at rest at the center of the cosmos.
 
In agreement with the principles of harmony and stasis, as like goes to like, and things that are alike couple and increase, "and water fits into wine but will not mingle with oil"(6), all accidental bodies on Earth tend to fall in a direct line towards the center of the Earth by a shared property of density. Were it not for the surface of the Earth where they land, they would keep falling to the center far below, and not from Newton's, Kepler's, or Galileo's theory of "gravitation". There where geometry, the elements, and the center of the Earth meet before them, things were already the way they were as much as the circle before theoretical heliocentrism arrived. 
 
If they were singing to bring down the chandelier, the cause of motion in the falling candelabra is for the same difference that dense and loose objects across the surface of the Earth tend to come to rest on the surface of the Earth, as the surface of the Earth is already at rest before them. Just as steam and fire and whatever of hot air tend to rise, denser objects like hanging chandeliers rather tend to come crashing down, when they do not find sufficient structural support for "stasis" in the ceiling.
 
The average speed of an arrow fired from a medieval style Welsh longbow is only about 162 feet per second, or 110 mph; and archers all across Britain can fire into the East, even today, with no problem from the targets spinning away ahead of them; but London, for example, should be flying away under foot and bow at 646 mph. When they fire North or South, the arrows do not fall behind the targets either. When they fire into the west, they do not overshoot the targets, or gain any longer range advantage from earth-spin and the targets obviously coming to them. In whatever direction of sight, there is never any added bearing from the Earth wheeling around to the east. 
 
All missiles lose the impelling force of the Earth, if there were one, and also the surface contact, and no things in targeted flight are affected by the Earth supposedly spinning away from under them. Rocks, arrows, cannon balls, rockets, helicopters, golf balls, and planes in the air separate from the earth completely and carry the weight only as far as conditions of impetus and momentum and air pressure allow, before they land again due to their concentrated density of solid mass. Except for atmospheric effects of wind and weather, they can be fired and targeted in any direction with no interference from any Coriolis effect from any supposed rotation of the Earth.
 
Besides there being no bearing from Earth roll ever added to the targeting of missiles of whatever kind, it is easy enough and fair to establish the principle that the aim for a target in vertical free fall is straight down. The line of sight for such a mark is exactly perpendicular to a plane that is tangent to the Earth, which plane is centered at the point that is the target. When straight down, in the direction called “down”, that is exactly perpendicular to the surface of still water, hits one target with a 5 second drop, it can hit the same mark along the same line of sight with a 7 or 10 second drop; and if with 10, then it can hit the same point with a 20 or 60 second drop, along the exact same vertical line, etc.
 
From the accepted formula generalized for falling bodies, the twenty second drop will need a displacement of around 1960 meters and the sixty second one 17,640 meters. So from a tower equivalent to the observation roof of the Empire State building, at 381 meters high, next to a deep well of 1579 meters, that distance together would suffice for twenty seconds of free fall, straight down.
 
According to the equation for acceleration of freely falling bodies, which is accepted today, d = 1/2gt^2. So for a 7 second drop a displacement of 240.1 meters is needed, for a 10 second drop 490 meters, for 20 seconds 1960 meters, and for sixty seconds 17,640 meters.
 
However, there is some defectability in the formula since it makes no allowance for weight, as it corresponds specifically to degrees of maximum acceleration. It is a little defective since every unique weight reaches a maximum velocity in free fall, and a finite weight cannot accelerate infinitely. The formula d = 1/2gt^2 misses this point, as it recognizes no limit on velocity increasing by t^2; and it would prefer to work in the blind, as much as Galileo, since it has no regard for the significance of specific weight and substance in the first place.
 
Would something with no weight at all fall at any rate? How could something with zero actual weight fall, and how could something not weigh anything? If something that did not weight anything, with zero actual weight, were falling from a great height next to a 500 pound anvil, what would make the difference in how fast they fall, except the 500 pounds of the anvil? Of course, the 500 pounds of the anvil, and every pound of it from 1 to 500 make a difference, but d = 1/2gt^2 takes no account of this. Maybe Galileo would also say that all numbers are equal and divison by zero makes sense, if only for the sake of Newton's apple?
 
The thing with no weight would have less "gravity" and not fall as fast as the 500 pound anvil, obviously. If it really had no weight at all, a thing with perfect zero weight, it would not even fall. Heavier weights, all other things being equal, therefore, do fall faster than lighter ones; and things with no weight at all do not even fall in any normal sense, nor as fast as weights that are naturally much heavier.
 
Greater and lesser concentrations of weight, as specific density in free fall acceleration, represent different frequencies of "gravity" and not by the inverse squared. There is a difference in force based on weight. A 500 pound anvil will fall faster than one of the same dimensions but made of balsa wood or styrofoam, for example, as different weights fall according to their different concentrations of heaviness and "gravity".
 
Galileo’s unscientific theory of universal gravitation and "law of falling bodies", that all weights generate the same velocity in free fall acceleration, regardless of weight, except for friction of the air, is simply false. Yet unfortunately it is incorporated in the formula for free falling bodies accepted today, d = 1/2gt^2. Things with weight accelerate to different maximum velocities based on particular weight. And even the heaviest finite weight cannot accelerate infinitely, which means by extension that Galileo’s and Newton’s ideas of perpetual horizontal motion are false, and Newton’s notion of absolute space and time is a mistake.
 
Since “g” would represent 9.8m/s^2, it is around 10m/s^2, which simplifies as 4.9 or 5 meters. As t^2 is left from (s^2)^2, the formula is really only saying 5 meters times whatever seconds squared, and leaves all values for weight out, and 5t^2 = distance or 4.9t^2 = distance, and time = (d/5)^1/2 or time = (d/4.9)^1/2.
 
But if d = 1/2gt^2 has been close enough for government work and fake trips to the Moon and Mars, it is fair enough to use to measure vertical drops and bekadeks to show that the Earth is not spinning.
 
For instance, if a circle on a chalk board represents a cross-sectioned view of Earth, with the tallest tower in the world, the Bhurj Khalifa, relocated to Quito, Ecuador, directly at the side of the circle in the middle on the left; and there in Quito, Bhurj Khalifa would be resting atop the peak of Mt. Everest, which also would be situated over the Kali Gandaki Gorge Canyon, and the mountain and the canyon would be cut with a sheer face, all the way down into an adjacent deep well, it could make displacement room for one fine sixty second drop of 17,640 meters(10.96 miles), from the top of a tower set over a mountain looking over a canyon and into a deep well.
 
To examine the fineness of the experimental abyss, from the top of the spire, Bhurj Khalifa is maybe 829.84 meters high. Although it has only the third highest observation deck in the world, at 452 meters, for the exercise it would have a good sturdy platform, ready for all-purpose science, at the top.
 
The Canton Tower has the highest observation deck at 488 meters, and the Shanghai World Financial Center has the second highest at 474 meters; but say Bhurj Khalifa has a spectacular resort location porch at 828 meters high, where one can fit a sufficient ramp, adjustable to 60 or 70 degrees in angle, and that way roll standard volleyballs, and ones made from lead or plutonium, and some made from balsa wood or styrofoam, off of it. There could be added as well a crane that extends over the side for straight away dead drops, for the sake of comparisons.
 
For the purpose of simplifying the work with so many different weights and measures, there could be introduced a new standard of scientific measure, the Bekhikagocadew, which represents an abyss of 17,640 meters and one free fall dead drop of at least sixty seconds. Bekhikagocadew would be an alphabet soup conjuration from Bhurj Khalifa (bek), Himalayas (hi), Kali Gorge Canyon (kagoca), and Deep Well (dew), and could be shortened to bekhikadeks or bekadeks, pronounced like bet-a-deck, except with the c instead of the t.

In a Cartesian grid, the circle at the center as a cross-section of the Earth would be drawn with the point of origin (0, 0) from the intersection of the x and y axis. The end of the spire’s observation deck, of Bhurj Khalifa, atop Mt. Everest, over the Kali Gorge Canyon next to the deep well, is at a point (-T) along the x axis, situated at (-T, 0). -T is one bekadek away from the bottom of the well at a point under the surface of the Earth, in the direction to the center, yet not too near the center of the circle and origin of the x and y axis at (0, 0).
 
The standard of measure achieved by the bekadek could be used for a few things, to include disproving matter-of-factly Galileo’s deceptive “Law of Falling Bodies” and the crazy notion that the Earth is revolving on its axis.
 
When a volley ball of lead and a standard one from the store are both dropped from one bekadek high, they will not reach the bottom of the well at the same time. Since they are lighter, volley balls made of styrofoam and balsa wood also will not fall as fast as the ones of lead or plutonium either. The heavier they are the faster they fall, and the heavier ones have more gravity.
 
The demonstration is simple that from a substantial height, a vertical stream of falling baseballs, golf balls, cricket and croquet balls, and rocks could create a framework of detectable motion perpendicular to the surface of the Earth where they land. Falling in a continuous streaming line of direction, straight down, with no significant forward or backward motion, they would be as detectable as a gumball machine spilling all over the floor; but no motion of the Earth into the eastern spaces through all the hours, days, weeks, Moons and months of the years would be anywhere noticeable, in all the accumulations of falling objects along the vertical line straight down.
 
"Boredom: the desire for desires, after all, is a form of criticism(7)" and over 24 hours 1440 weights could be dropped to mark all the minutes and 360 degrees of the ecliptic, for a day, and 10,080 for a week, and the line of things falling straight down from there will not drag behind the Earth’s supposed rotation and neither will the target swerve ahead. A wide and deep well at the bottom of them could be filled up by an unbroken stream of falling weights before any of them would ever fall back behind the Earth’s supposed rotations. The well would be filled up before the western edge of the great well casing ever moved forward into the falling stream overhead. There would be no sign of any forward movement from the Earth in any of it --- only the vertical motion straight down of the weights free falling in a line perpendicular to a tangent plane where they land, one after another.
 
 
 
"Et cum non prosunt singula, multa juvant". When things fail singly, they prevail in quantity, and the face of the moon does not spin on its axis by the seconds or the minutes, and would have the strength of some tangible property.
 
The tourist effect would be almost the same as Angel Falls in Venezuela, the world's highest waterfall at 3230 feet, with an uninterrupted drop of 2647 feet. From a bekadek high one could drop a baseball, a golf ball, a rock, a cricket or croquet ball in spaces separated one minute apart, four objects for every degree of the ecliptic passing by overhead in the sky. It takes four minutes for a degree of the ecliptic to pass the midheaven, as it takes four minutes for a degree to pass the ascendant, the descendant, and the immum coeli. And from a height of 17,640 meters one could create a constant stream of vertical free fall, by letting a weight go over the side every minute. Over all the hours and divisions of a day, the sun, the moon, and the stars will pass by in the dome of the sky, and the metronomical free fall of so many weights will never drift behind the well, and the well will never move ahead, because the Earth is not moving.
 
 
 
 
 
III 
 
 
To examine it further, some will say the phenomenon is because of “gravity” and “inertia”, that no one notices the Earth moving away from the continuous vertical stream of weights dead dropped in free fall from a watchtower on a mountain, over a cliff into a deep well.
 
"Because of gravity and relative inertial frames of reference", they say? How twisted and painful the irony and oblivious the scientific materialist indoctrination. Gravity and inertia, in fact, because the Earth is not moving at all, and not orbiting the Sun.
 
 
When they make the excuse of gravity and inertia, they are talking about universal gravitation and relative inertial frames of reference; and "universal gravitation" and "relative inertial frames of reference” are disingenuous terms of a mathematical fallacy* that are used by heliocentrism to avoid the fact that natural theories of motion refer to a nonmoving Earth.
 
So-called gravitation is not universal and the inertia of the Earth is not a relative inertial frame of reference. The inertial stasis of the earth is something essential, unique, and authentic per se, and actual gravity is determined merely as an immediate and coextensive attribute of substance, and limited by properties of weight, mass, charge, and momentum, etc. If there is no weight, no mass, no charge, no momentum, no density, there is no gravity. 
 
If there is no kind of September, what will one try to remember, when grass was green and grain so yellow?  Try to remember and if one remembers, then follow, and deep in December it is nice to remember the autumn fire that was in September, etc.
 
"Virtus semper viridis", virtue is always green and sometimes corny. If there were universal gravitation, then it would be in all instances the same. It would be full of weight and heaviness everywhere. It would be unlimited and make all things heavy and leave nothing light. Universal gravitation would annihilate anything not heavy and not dense and all things would become overburdened with the weight, mass, density, and the concentrated charge of it. If it existed, it would be from point to point, across all points, and would cause a massive collapse into a single undivided heavy point of unlimited density and despair, since it could leave nothing light or rarefied.
 
Universal gravitation is a sneaky way to describe an infinite property without saying it outright. If the Newtonain gravitatation is not infinite, not totally isotropic everywhere, then it is not universal; but if it were infinite, it would eradicate everything light and condense all rarefied elements, leaving no lighter divisions. “For example: if the Sun were infinitely hot either virtually or formally, in either case it would leave nothing cold in the universe”.(8)
 
Galileo, Kepler, and Newton unscientifically and illogically hypothesized the principle of universal gravitation only to support the false theory of heliocentrism. Contradicting the second clause of Newton’s First Law of Motion, things that are loosed across the Earth tend to come to rest on the Earth, as the Earth is always at rest before them, and gravity is not any mechanically practical or significant contact-impressed force. It is the weakest of the four fundamental forces anyway, if it did exist for heliocentrism, and weaker than a refrigerator magnet.
 
Secondly, the inertia of the Earth is not merely a “relative inertial frame of reference” but an inertial frame authentically sealed at rest from place to place.
 
From a bekadek high, the contrast of wind, atmospheric pressure, and weather variables to gravity and inertia in testing objects in free fall, at times, may be significant, since the winds are freely moving and only varying surface temperatures and conditions of dryness or moisture atmosphere affect them. Cycles of humidity, precipitation, heat or cold, and the climate zones contribute to spin in the wind not any Coriolis effect from supposed rotations of the Earth.
 
The separate stage the surface of Earth sets tends to center objects in free fall around it, straight down towards a target, in a direct line; whereas the wind, if strong enough and the object light enough, might blow anything off course. The naturally well centered Earth, and its limited range of weight, mass, inertia, and gravity add consistently concentric factors of alignment, where the wind adds a factor of variability and flight. If metal well casing needed to be continued closer up to the drop point from the tower, so the rocks, baseballs, croquet, cricket, and golf balls in free fall can accurately hit the target sixty seconds below, it is only because of the power of the winds not because of any spinning rotation of the Earth.
 
 
IV  From Quito to the South Pole ... and to outer space, out-on-a-limb Shirley MacLaine still exists, et "quand on veut graduer pour l'Eterntite il faut etre pret a faire queleque sacrifice au sentiment de la perpendiculaire".
 
 
When we want to move into Eternity, we should be ready to make some sacrifice to the feeling of the perpendicular, and the imaginary force of gravitation is so peculiar, great, and direct that none of the rocks, baseballs, golf balls, croquet or cricket balls, and weights that are let go in dead drops, from a bekadek high watchtower in Quito, would ever fall away with any verve further down to the South, down the negative scale of the y-axis, which is below in another way, when looking at the chalkboard illustration.
 
The "gravity" of the Earth pulls things in one direction only, down directly to the center, as exact as a plumb-line to the origin of the grid (0,0), from wherever they are falling. Not a lateral force, it does not exercise an active impetus or momentum, and not even the heaviest volley balls made of lead or plutonium in the longest free fall would ever curve away to the South from any gravity. None would curve a little around the Earth towards the South pole as they fall, even though that represents the bottom of the chalk board, and "gravity" pulls things down, in the direction that is properly called "down", that is perpendicular to the surface of still water.
 
Only a strong wind or the impetus from a lateral launch would move any of the weights sideways, North or South, up or down along the y-axis, or sideways forward or back, East or West along the z-axis. Because of the direct and centering influence of "gravity", hidden in the elements, none would fall with any verve away from the center; and because the Earth is not spinning and flying away into the eastern spaces, none would fall away to the west either, as if the Earth were flying in space to orbit the sun. 
 
If the aggregate precipice from one tower on a mountain, over a canyon into a deep well, with a sheer vertical drop of 60 seconds and 17,640 meters per baseball, was all resituated at the center of the South pole, none of the baseballs would fall away into the abyss of space far out and “below the Earth". Because the Earth rests at the center of things, and is the common foundation of all that is built across its surface, even as they extend up to the heavens like towers. None of the weights would fall off towards the bottom of the chalk board and vanish into outer space, unless moved by the wind. Whether from Quito, or the center of Antarctica, where polar rocks would look like they were going up when they were falling down in the chalkboard, they all fall down to the surface of the Earth directly, where they would land as falling to the center, and that way also as to the immobile center of the cosmos.
 
 
 

Since the surface of the Earth is curved as a sphere, all points across it are also midpoints of many tangent lines. As midpoints of many tangents go, they are also centers of many successive tangential planes, where the lines collect in a plane tangential to the sphere at that point. All the vertical bisectors of these planes that go up, that ascend as rays and run upward into outer space, share a unique mathematical origin from the center of the Earth. This is a simple way one can see that the sphere of the Earth is the center of the sphere of the cosmos.

 

Since the rays ascending up from the center of the Earth have a unique origin common to all of them, they are like so many arrows gathered in a spherical bundle, with their feathers all together at the center, and their arrowheads in the edge of space. It is the same pattern as a diagram of an electric field induced by a positive charge.

 

There are as many rays descending as ascending. However, the ones going down each have a unique origin that is not common to any of the others. The feathers there, for the rays in descent, are positioned all around the spherical edge of outer space, with different coordinates, while their arrowheads all finish with a cosmic bull’s eye at the center of the Earth, which is also the center of the the cosmos. It is the same pattern as a diagram of an electric field induced by a negative charge.

 
And out of all these rays, there is only one line between the center of the Earth and the center of the Moon that forms the basis of all the Moon’s astronomical aspects, vis-à-vis the Earth, and in view of all the stars, and planets, and astral alignments. Even Hollywood talent Shirley MacLaine out on a limb knows her math, and knows there is always one unique ray going from the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon, and vice versa. It was rumored in obscure circles that she even named the line “Monique”, a contraction from “most Moon unique”, like an imaginary friend out of Malibu loneliness, so she would not forget. Imaginary friends sometimes are the best, and someone said that was how she would talk to the Moon, "Monique", and so forth. She may not be the only one.
 
At any rate, the aspects of “Monique” are like cosmic rays that form a multitude of angles tied together in a collection like a spider’s web, without the face spinning around, and they last much too long for it to be possible that the Earth is spinning away at astronomical rates into the east, making time to orbit the Sun. If there is any doubt, all that is needed is to start dropping televisions, radios, cell phones, rocks, and shoes in a vertical stream from a bekadek high, and watch the mark never move forward or the stream of TV’s and rocks fall behind. 1440 items could be dropped for a day and “Monique’s line” would have shifted about 12 degrees behind the stars after a day along the ecliptic. 40,320 items could be dropped over four weeks, and the terrestrial mark will never have moved forward, and the vertical stream will never have fallen behind, and the Moon then will have been passed by all the starry signs and gone through all its phases. 
 
The Earth simply is the sphere in equilibrium at the center of the cosmos, and the cosmos, therefore, is also a sphere. It is only so many bekadeks from any place on the surface of the Earth to any distant point in the cosmos, as it is only so many bekadeks to a plane, any plane of space, even to ye olde Saturn.
 
If science wanted to make a free fall chute of 24 hours, the lab coats would only need to displace round shot or BB's from 1440 bekadeks high: for a week, a fortnight, or one 30 day billing cycle, a team of experts would only need to displace from 10,080 then 20,160 and 43,200 bekhikadeks above, et cetera.
 
One bekadek equivalent to 10.96 or 11 miles can be used for comparisons between a few different things, including: 
 
 
1. The average altitude of transatlantic flights (35,000 to 39,000 feet) only 6/10 to 7/10 bekhikagocadews high, for perhaps 36 or 42 seconds of freefall of a bowling ball, if one accepts the formula for little "g" 9.8 without corrections.
 
2. The high altitude parachute drop from Project Excelsior (1.75 bekadeks, 19.4694 miles). Joe Kittinger of the USAF jumped from 102,800 feet - 19.5 miles - in 1960. Felix Baumgartner jumped 24 miles in October 2012, 2.18 bekadeks. Whenever stunt men have done high altitude jumps they always land close from where they jumped, which shows the Earth is not moving.
 
3. The highest altitude unmanned balloon launch, the BU60-1 flying experiment (2.99387 bekadeks, 32.9326 miles, approximately 3 bekadeks, 33 miles  for 3 minutes)
 
4. The international space station in low Earth orbit (240 miles for 21 to 22 plus minutes) 
 
5. If true but top secret, probably exaggerated, an ICBM's top of the arc altitude from perhaps a maximum of 500 miles, 45.45 minutes.
 
6. The neutral gravity zone between the Moon and the Earth, estimated from about 216,000 miles. 216,00 miles = 13 days 15 hours and 16 to 17 minutes
 
7. The perigee and apogee of the moon from 227,000 to 252,000 miles = 14 days and 8 or 9 hours to 15 days 22 hours to 16 days
 
8. Dropping golf balls from Saturn or from the fantastic distance of a Biblical day.
 
Of course, lab coats dropping space rocks to the earth from the heavenly spheres, more than 216,000 miles out and so on, is only an extraordinary parallel of math, a pleasant abstraction of the quintessence. The different spheres of outer space are bordered by abyssmal rails, de profundis, and extreme conditions of temperature and radiation, and electromagnetic force fields, and deep elemental chasms and higher powers, and so forth, that make it normally impractical. 
 
Yet based on eclipses, and ratios of time and space between the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon, and extrapolating from these to Saturn, pro rata, and considering the possible variabilities of aethereal and crystalline conditions prevailing in outer space, one could guess from averages in solid astronomical math that a golf ball dropped from Saturn could take 100 or maybe even 120 years to land on Earth. That would be many bekhikadeks away, and represent a long golf ball retriever.
 
If a golf ball dropped from Saturn or Jupiter should land in the yard, a scientist should know that the finger of God is upon him, or something other worldy by design. St. Peter of the 2,000 years described a sort of biblical day, "that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Quia unus dies apud Dominum sicut mille anni, et mille anni sicut dies unus."(9)
 
For a golf ball falling through space that would correspond to the scale of 1000 years, it would be perhaps 525,600,000 bekadeks or only 5,781,600,000 miles away, since a displacement of 1440 bekadeks would be necessary for a drop of 24 hours, and 525,600 for a drop of one year.
 
St. Peter also wrote that there would be a dissolution of the corrupted elements of this world by fire not gravity. "All these things are to be dissolved: haec igitur omnia dissolvenda sint".
 
"But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence and the elements shall be melted with heat and the earth and the works which are in it shall be burnt up ... all these things are to be dissovled. Adveniet autem dies Domini ut fur, in qua caeli magno impetu transient et elementa vero calore solventur ... et haec igitur omnia dissolvenda sint".(10)
 
 
The principle that the aim for a target in vertical sight below is straight down, with no bearing from any supposed roll away of the Earth, establishes that such a line of sight is the same from one to several and to dozens and even to hundreds and thousands and millions of bekadeks out into space. The line of sight for such a target is exactly perpendicular to a plane tangent to the Earth, where the plane is centered at the point that is the target. When straight down, in the direction called “down”, that is “exactly perpendicular to the surface of still water” and to a plane tangent to the Earth, hits one target then it can hit the same target along the exact same vertical line ad infinitum. This demonstrates that the Earth is not moving even as tests for motion would continue beyond number.
 
As the minutes go into the hours, the days, and the weeks of the months and the years, then the decades, and the centuries, and rivers of time, from one to many bekadeks of high altitude, to Saturn and Aldeberan and beyond, etc., infinity cannot be reached by any number of bekhikagocadews, no matter how great. Actual infinity cannot be fathomed by any number of parts or by any increase or extension of time and space. The energy or the way that would characterize infinity is not of divisible charges in time or space. Absolute infinity is of an order of indivisibility and transcendence without beginning or end.
 
However high and far away a platform of a spaceship or of a watchtower measured in bekadeks could go, in however many stages, it will never have gone any part of the way into infinity. It will only have gone halfway to the point twice as far away, or ¼ or 1/5 of the way to the point 4 or 5 times as far away and so on, etc.
 
The universe and natural order of space are finite as a shell, and so is the Earth’s so-called "gravitational field", which is nothing more than its distinct sphere. A key part of the limit of the cosmos is the immobility of the Earth in equilibrium at the center, and by position the center ties all the other parts together.  
 
Hollywood actor Lee Marvin once said, "If I have any appeal at all, it's to the fellow who takes out the garbage." If this sort of honest science had a spokesman, for any appeal at all, it could be a job for the fellow who takes out the garbage, and we say that space is finite --- actual for what would be "absolute", actual as in not infinite --- and gravity is not universal. The Earth does not push or pull the Moon around it, for example, and there is not a force of emission from the earth that drives the moon around it. The Moon goes around the Earth for its own reasons, and it does not affect Earth’s tides.