Q & A Review
What is Galileo's "law of falling bodies"?
It is a disingenuous prop
Should it be dismissed, and what does it say?
should, and says that all weights accelerate with the same speed, force of velocity, in free fall due to the active effects of universal gravitation. They would say that "a freely falling object is an object that moves under the influence of gravity alone."
Is this true?
of course it is false. His law of the pendulum is not true either, which also contradicts the equation for angular velocity, v =(w)r.
Galileo himself said that "the laws of nature are written
in the language of mathematics"; and his law of falling bodies and law of the pendulum are bad grammar; and it would be very bad in any language to say that math can escape logic. Two things that math cannot escape are quantity and logic. Although he
may well fool some unsuspecting people in the margins, if the margins are examined closely enough, or the situation is made obvious, it becomes apparent that Galileo was a joker and a clown.
Galileo's "law of falling bodies" scientific?
It would enjoy that pretension, but no, it is not scientific. It is theoretically abstract and misleading and fails the scientific method. It is illogical,
counterfactual, and contra-mathematical. It is a failed effort at reductio absurdum and fools some people in the margins of equivocation and insufficiency, where Galileo did his damndest.
does this law do? For its absurdity, it must have a purpose?
It is useful as a means of creating clouds of confusion through methods of
and insufficiency. It obscures valid theories of motion which refer
themselves to the Earth as an authentic measure of constant rest.
did Galileo devise this law?
He was devious when it came to advancing the cause of Copernicanism, to the
embarrassment of common sense, Aristotle, the Christian faith, and the Church. He was a rascal, and for mathematical and psychological reasons, he saw a need in the Copernican system
to provide a substitute constant for the immobility of the Earth.
This substitute constant was couched in the "law of falling bodies", as
little "g", in Galileo's formula of free fall. It supposedly represents the "force of universal gravitation" from the surface of the earth, which is not actually a real force of physics but an abstract fiction. Galileo was dabbling in math theory around the edges of potential infinity, from the margins of equivocation and insufficiency.
The closest this law gets to the truth is on paper, and even there it is still not true. It undermines authenticity, which is of primary importance in science. The earth is an authentic ... not relative ...
Have you tested this law yourself and found it to be fale?
Yes, indeed, of course ...
with objects of equal volume and form but different heaviness.
Will they reply, however, that the heavier weights "fall faster" due
to "air resistance", "atmospheric affects of friction", and so forth which affect the lighter objects more?
Yes, and it is not an honest or intelligent
answer. It is ludicrous and
begs the question stupidly. The heavier weights fall faster because of their greater concentration of density. Furthermore, "gravity" is not a lateral force; and, as the Earth is a sphere,
it is not a vertical one either.
What does that mean?
Drop an anvil from the Eiffel tower.
Gravity is not a lateral force. It does not move anything sideways.
an anvil dropped from the Eiffel tower falls straight down, you say there is not "gravity"?
Not in the Newtonian sense, of course not.
There never has been. There is the heaviness of the anvil that is not naturally supported by air, and, as the earth is a sphere, any vertical column around the earth is already lateral to two continuous sides.
a tower at the center of the North pole and drop a shower of rocks from it. "Gravity" will not move objects sideways, but the falling rocks are lateral to the entire equatorial circumference of the earth, along all the lines of meridian intersection --- to
the tune of degrees, minutes, and seconds of arc that are continuous.
You may have convinced yourself with this sort of illustration,
but there will not be many people today who can believe this sort of thing. They could say this idea is half-baked?
Make a golf ball drop from the middle of the
North Pole, with a rules official watching you very closely, and the ball will have no lateral movement. Make a golf ball drop from the equator, with a rules official watching you very closely, and
the ball will have no lateral movement. Go anywhere around the surface of the earth, and you will discover that "gravity" is nowhere a lateral force.
ball falls down to the earth, where it comes to authentic rest, as the earth is always at rest before it, because of an operative principle in nature of concentration in kind after kind, in quale quid --- and that is not Newtonian or Keplerian "gravity".
Some of your antagonists may protest that these golf ball and anvil statements are only true relative to the location on earth where the golf ball or anvil is dropped; and that you are assuming
relativism in order to deny it. Therefore, your point of view contradicts itself.
No, we mean simple authenticity not relativity. For example, you cannot move away from yourself. Neither
can a golf ball or anvil. The location is simple not complicated. The golf ball cannot be in two different places at the same time, and neither can you.
This is not assuming "relativism". We abjure Einstein
and Newton. We fairly assume that authenticity actually exists, and is unique.
Since the earth and the cosmos are everywhere spherical and 3-D in overall form, where a straight line is a vertical in one location,
it is a lateral simultaneously with many other straight lines that are similar to it, that are in parallel extension, 90" in space from it, according to the uniform curve of a circle.
Where they become perpendicular
in space to another set of verticals, according to the uniform curve of a circle, as the North Pole's vertical is perpendicular to the Equator's, for example, and vice versa, the theory that "gravity" is an exclusively vertical force breaks down.
If the ball is actually moving laterally in any instance, I deny that that is by the so-called "force of gravity", because I say that I can demonstrate at any time and in any place, as well as any fool could require,
that "gravity" is not a lateral force.
Since 1687 "gravity" has become a misappropriation of terms. "Gravity" does exist, but only as a matter of density and weight, in mass in quale quid, as a coextensive attribute
of being, et cetera --- not as some occult-action-at-a-distance by the "inverse squared".
How can a line be both vertical in one location and simultaneously lateral
in another, without assuming relativism? That implies that "vertical" or "lateral" depends on the observer's field and point of reference.
It is an objective matter of extension and divisibility in real space, and as I subscribe
to authenticity, I also say that the center must hold, as much as there is natural concentration of things, as like goes to like. Similis simili gaudet natura naturans.
I would say that by the mathematical qualifications of a particular point in
space, that is real, by the reasonable terms of 3-D geometry, when it is one point on the surface of a volley ball, it is halfway opposite the others, which are 90" away at the turn of a 90" curve, in the uniform curvature of a circle.
point on a volley ball is halfway opposite another, at a 90" curve, in the extension in space between these two points, many perpendiculars are developed, from and to the center, such that the vertical at one surface is lateral to the vertical at the other.
They talk and talk about billions and billions of years for talk shop of science, around and around in circles, but how old is geometry --- by that we mean space --- and how old is sideways?
How old is truth? The Romans used to say,
"virtus semper viridis", but they thought that the sun orbits the earth too.
You say that gravity is not a lateral force, and that is the end of Einstein, Netwon, Galileo,
Kepler, and Copernicus. Is it fair to say that the moon and the sun move laterally around the earth, along the ecliptic of the sun that informs the equator and the tropics?
Yes, a conventional
and natural way to say it is that they move laterally around the earth. Therefore, it cannot be gravity that causes their orbits, since gravity is not a force that acts sideways.
because the earth and the cosmos are spherical, people could imagine they move vertically along the ecliptic by turning the globe ninety degrees north or south. It is still better to say first that they go laterally around the earth, and this cannot
be from a so-called "force of graviation".
Will they admit that "gravity" is weaker than the tiniest refrigerator magnet in the world?
Is this true?
It is. In fact, "gravity" is so weak that it is not a force of any practical
measure in real
physics. It is weaker than all forces we are able to experience directly.
What about the asteroid belt and meteors? Are there not some strange rocks, minerals, and ice crystals in outer space? Do they
help prove the Copernican theory?
What is far out is far out, and some things are very far out. The asteroid belt and whatnot in outer space do not support the Copernican theory any
better than the moon or the sun. The penguin does not contradict the scorpion for nature or the truth.
Newton commits logical fallacies of composition with his Rules 2 and 3. He over-generalizes.
Scientific materialism cannot even explain why it is today, when and how the sun and the moon first arrived, much less why the moon and the sun and whatnot are there in outer space.
They only have sophomoric
mechanistic answers to beg the questions with subtle fallacies and misleading and irresponsible math.
What about that
"Apollo" astronaut who supposedly dropped a feather and a hammer on the Moon to prove Galileo's "law of fall"?
In the movie and theatrical business, WC Fields said "never give a sucker an even break". At first it was an ad-lib line from a play, but later he made a feature film of the same title, "Never Give A Sucker An Even
Break". This should be NASA's and the Federal Reserve's motto. The IRS too.
He was not even on the Moon, and that was a trick. Judeo-Masonic
controlled NASA is so deceptive, who knows if the shaft and quill were not weighted? A feather will fall faster if it is pointed straight down like an arrow, and he only dropped the items from around shoulder height. Like Galileo, he was playing in the margins of equivocation and insufficiency.
a feather and toss it to the wind and watch the wind carry it. Take a hammer and toss it to the wind and watch it fall with its heavy weight. The heavier the hammer, the harder it is to lift and toss,
and the faster it falls.
Does the hammer fall faster than the feather because of Galileo's "gravity" or Newton's "inverse squared"?
No, it does not even in the first place. It falls because of its material density. A hammer is too heavy to be supported by air. It is a question of elemental mediation like "paper, rock, or scissors".
When a hammer within the sphere of the earth falls to the ground, it is falling as to the center of the earth, which earth is well compacted together as a large spherical body at rest at the center of the cosmos. It would be unnatural
for a hammer to fly away over the air. Natural elements will take their course in their sphere.
Rather it is a question of proper impetus and stabilization, in quale quid. Call that "gravity" if
you like, but "gravity" is not an actual force that pulls or pushes things.
Newton had a fit one day and confessed himself that teaching 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, is ... so great an absurdity, that I believe
no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it."
In one word, he described it as "inconceivable".
"Inconceivable", he said?
Yes, and gravity so-called does not cause earthquakes, rockslides, avalanches, geyser spouts, or volvcanic eruptions. Material conditions of temperature,
pressure, and stabilization do that.
Gravity would cause things to move only as a part of impetus, momentum, and elemental distribution.
Then gravity does not account for the orbit of the moon around the earth?
No it does not. The gravity of the earth does not move marbles or empty paper cups
and coke cans on the highway either. Gravity is not a lateral or vertical force of any account. The moon orbits the earth from a celestial momentum generated in its own sphere.
way does the moon go?
It goes from east to west around the earth, clockwise when viewed from above the North pole.
Newton get that wrong?
He did. He got it backwards.
He was off his
rocker for an escape from reality, and suffering from chronic mercury poisoning and recurrent bouts of insanity. He was another liberal lost in the cosmos, but the Bank of England and the Freemasons loved his nutty abstractions.
Was that all?
There was method to the madness. Because the moon is so much closer to the earth than the sun and the other planets, and distant stars,
it would be noticeable if the earth were spinning away from underneath it into the east at daily astronomical rates like 1038 mph, while the moon simultaneously circles the earth from east to west at its own astronomical rates. So Newton devised the idea that
the moon was going from west to east and falling behind the earth's massive daily rotation into the east.
Of course, no one ever sees the earth spinning or the moon going from west to east. What
everybody sees is just the opposite. There is no actual scientific data to support these Newtonian notions.
Like the supposed equatorial bulge and squeezed-in polar caps?
Is the earth not an oblate spheroid?
It is not an oblate spheroid but a perfect
sphere overall. The snow-capped pillars of the earth spin at a constant rate of 0 mph, if they spin at all, which is not spinning, and they are not "squeezed-in". They are uniformly curved around the big picture just like the equator.
Newton and Kepler believed that the moon affects tides also. Is that false too?
It is false, and Galileo did not even believe that the moon affects
tides. Even heliocenstrism 2016 admits that there is a "neutral gravity zone" between the earth and the moon, but what they fail to add is that any neutral gravity zone must be extensively complete.
there is any "neutral gravity" zone between the earth and moon, it must necessarily be extensively complete and cover the entire distance between them, from surface to surface.
For example, if
there is a breach in a wall before Napoleon's Army or the Mississippi river, the whole force, army or river, can flow through. If there is any neutral gravity zone between the earth and moon, the whole distance in miles between them, from perigee to apogee,
It is like that with any neutral gravity zone; and, of course, there are innumerable neutral gravity zones between the earth and the moon all over the place. If the moon cannot move
marbles or empty paper cups and cans on the highway, how can it then move tides, which are so massive and heavy?
Like the earth's atmosphere and the seasons of the tropics, tidal forces are vast
and yet another matter again ... from "gravity".
Why did Newton and Kepler believe this superstition?
They were bewitched
by alchemy, astrology, and the moon. The notion that the moon affects tides has no real scientific justification. It is a superstition based only on accidental and coincidental means of interpretation.
What do the spherical curvature of the earth and the universal 24 hour day mean?
They mean that Copernicanism is impossible, because the different latitudes of the earth cannot
spin at many different speeds to account for the universal 24 hour day. With Copernicanism, it will be either the common day or the earth that must fall apart.
It is easier for them to
conceal the confusion by applying the wrong answer to the earth's latitudes first, because everybody knows that the day is 24 hours.