"Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ is deceptive and fraudulent. Its promise is light, but its performance is darkness. Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong, essentially wrong, and a seed of evil, which can never produce any good."

-President John Quincy Adams

(m.a.f.i.a. is an acronym from the history of Italian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, which means Mazzini autorizza furti, incendi, avvelenamenti. Mazzini authorizes thefts, arsons, and poisonings.)

http://www.destroyFɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.com/

As far as the faked Moon landings and faked trips to Mars that cost billions and billions, and indoctrinate billions in the errors of "scientific" materialism, NASA never has any pictures of the stars and planets from the Moon or Mars. The Apollo astronanuts and NASA have said that you can't see stars from the Moon. This is ridiculous. The reason they say that is because they are uncertain of how to take pictures of planets and stars from Earth and pretend that they were taken from Mars or the Moon and get away with it. So all their pictures from the Moon and Mars are basically tight shots, because they are not on the Moon or Mars.

People would see stars all day from the Earth if it had no atmosphere, and the Moon has no atmosphere. Many stars and a few famous planets like Jupiter and Saturn should have been visible, and brightly so, from the Moon.

Donachie, I kiss your beautiful feet.

NASA and JPL are ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic fronts. They are practically like "scientology" and "Aleister Crowley Sgt. Pepper's Beatles' Community Centers" or whatever someone may want to call it. "Jack Parsons, L. Ron Hubbard, and John Lennon" and the Sigil of Baphomet theme.

Aleister Crowley also wrote "The Book of Lies", which could be required NASA brass reading.

The atmosphere of the Apollo 11 Press Conference was very tense and very wrong. imo it is obvious that they are lying, and they were never on the Moon.
The seal of idiocy is over it it all when they claim that they could not see, or could not remember seeing, any stars from the Moon. This is heinous. If someone was on the Moon, he could see many stars and planets all day, and much brighter, whether he was on the day or night side of Earth. The Moon has no atmosphere, and the only reason people do not see stars and planets all day from Earth is because of the Earth's atmosphere, which powerfully and overwhelmingly captures, scatters, and magnifies so much sunlight. If the Earth were like the Moon and had no atmosphere, people could see stars and planets from the Earth all day. Richard C. Hoagland and NASA still claim stars are not visible from the Moon. This is completely false. They say this because it has been too difficult for them to fake pictures of the stars and planets from the supposed surface of the Moon. Armstrong: "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon ... I don't recall during the period of time we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see ..." Collins: "I can't remember seeing any ..."



This is more Apollo 11 and the atmosphere is not right imo. I can tell they are lying and something is definitely wrong. Am I the only one?



Here Armstrong still says stars and planets were not visible from the moon.



Fly in a plane at a decent altitude like a U-2 and you can see many stars. Many stars are visible from the ISS (International Space Station) which is only 240 miles out in low earth orbit. The Moon is 250,000 miles away with no atmosphere. You should see stars and planets from the Moon.

At the time of the supposed Apollo 11 Moon landing, the Moon and Jupiter were both in the first decan of Libra. Jupiter is a very bright and distinctive star. If they did not see Jupiter, or Spica in Virgo, or Regulus in Leo, or Antares in Scorpio, or Mars in the first decan of Sagittarius, then they were not on the Moon. The Moon is 250,000 miles away, and the depth of outer space is so great, and with the length of time that they were supposedly on the Moon they should have been able to see Saturn and Aldebaran in Taurus and Venus in Gemini also.

Where does the money that NASA takes for faked deep space missions actually go? They have never landed on the Moon, and they cannot land on it today, and they have never landed a rover on Mars. They are not on Mars today with a rover. They cannot even correctly tell you which way the Moon goes. NASA has the Moon going the wrong way. They have it backwards, and they think it takes the Moon almost 28 days to orbit the Earth. They got their bad ideas from Newton and Kepler. Newton and Kepler both had the Moon going the wrong way.

The Moon goes from East to West around the Earth in around 24 hours and 50 minutes every day. It is going clockwise around the Earth when viewed from above the North Pole, and it does not rotate.

In fact, the Moon does not rotate at all and neither does the Earth. The Earth is not moving, and it is not rotating, and the Sun also orbits the Earth from East to West every day, clockwise when viewed from above the North Pole.

Heliocentrism is completely wrong and so is NASA. NASA is ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic hoaxem like the UN ... and its Foucaulty pendulum ... Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate), and the "Federal" Reserve Bank and Wall Street.

Wake up and smell the coffee. You have been had and buried by the TV. They think you are about as smart as a box of rocks ... or dumb as a post.

Stanley Kubrick helped film the faked Apollo Moon landings (69-72), and NASA's own film from their lunar soundstage shows have artifical lighting and stage wires, and there is a large spotlight, a lightbulb, in the Apollo "Sun". How do stage wires and artificial lighting get on the Moon and a lightbulb in the Apollo "Sun"? The answer is that they were never on the Moon. In fact, they cannot land a man on the Moon today, and no man has gone past low Earth orbit (240 miles like the ISS today).

The Foucault pendulum hoaxem at the UN is driven, damped, and tuned. It is not what "scientific" materialist gate-keepers and interpreters pretend that it is. The ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic controlled Netherlands donated it to the UN in 1955, one year after the first Bilderberger meetings in the Netherlands in 1954.

It was during the Second ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Republic of France, after the communist revolutions of 1848 brought Louis Napoleon to power, that the Foucault pendulum was originally and coincidentally introduced in 1851, to demonstrate to poor rubes how the Earth is supposedly moving in space, and spinning around and around, to orbit the Sun. Yet 161 years later it still ironically proves the opposite case: the Earth is not moving at all, if you have not noticed already, and the Sun and the planets and stars are all orbiting the Earth.

PS
Of course, all the LEO (low Earth orbit) satellites from 100-450 miles out and etc., show the same details in general as the geostationary (not "geosynchronous") ones 22,300 miles out. They all clearly show the Earth is not moving.

The Moon is 250,000 miles away. Besides the Van Allen radiation belts, there is an extensive and powerful neutral gravity zone between the Earth and the Moon, a magnetic field like a chasm, which science does not yet understand. NASA cannot land on it today or put a remote orbiter around it.

What is the gravity of a chemistry school book like in its structure and design?

There is the cost of it at the college book store, and the time and energy that will be invested in reading it and understanding it. There is the weight of understanding the subject matter that it contains, and the actual weight of the elements and materials that are only discussed in the book and are not actually there but are at large in the world of creation, in the world of quiddity and quality. Then there is the weight and density of the book itself. There is the gravity of the overall social environment of school, the time of the class, and the course deadlines of the syllabus. There is the gravity of the grade obtained, A - F, and, of course, the cost of tuition.

"Graviora manent", as the Romans used to say, and Starkville, Mississippi may or may not be far from Rome in different corners. If one goes to Mississippi State, for example, the gravity of tuition is $2,903.5 in state and $7,337 out of state undergraduate, and it is $3,134 in state and $7,920 out of state graduate. It could be heavier and more dense, and with the insanities of inflation and the Federal Reserve criminal conspiracy to control the wealth and credit of the naive United States, tuition and school costs most certainly will increase. "Graviora manent", "heavier things remain", and sometimes greater dangers are ahead.

But how does the physical weight of a 3 pound text book work in gravity? What does it do in gravity and what does it show about the Earth and its gravity?

It demonstrates that Newton's theory of heliocentrism and of universal and mutual gravitation by the inverse squared is wrong, and that his first "law", or "axiom", of motion, that "Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon," is also wrong.

The first phrase of Newton's law, that "every body perseveres in its state of rest" ... "unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon",  is correct. It is the second phrase involving "uniform motion in a right line"  that is in error.

Gravity is a simple and coextensive attribute of things as they are in themselves, and on Earth it brings things that are loosed across the surface of the Earth to rest, as the Earth is always at rest before them. Objects that have been loosed in motion across the Earth tend to come to rest on the Earth not necessarily, as in the first law of motion from Newton, because of "impressed forces" but because of the simple nature of finite motion and finite force in the first place. Finite motions and finite forces per se, such as those taking place across the Earth, cannot persevere infinitely in "uniform motion in a right line" anyway.

Infinite motion and infinite force in a straight line is not at all possible. An infinite motion must have an infinite source, and every straight line, "right line" as Newton calls it, has a beginning and an end, and, therefore, clearly no straight line can be infinite. If a force is along a right line, the character of it per se that makes it finite in the beginning and in the end is its own essential compressed force that is inescapable in the nature of finitude itself.

The only infinite motion that is mathematically and logically possible is circular motion. Not only poetically and metaphorically, but mathematically and logically, circles, not straight lines, symbolize infinite motion. Without beginning nor end, circles are the appropriate poetic and metaphorical mathematical and logical symbols of eternity and of any infinite motion or infinite force, not straight lines.

Bodies that are in motion across the Earth and those that are in space do not persevere in a uniform right line. Rather, those loosed on Earth tend to come to rest per se, as the Earth itself is alwasy at rest before them; and natural celestial bodies up above that are persevering in continuous uniform motion in space are all going in circles, not in right lines.

And gravity works vertically not laterally; therefore also, it is not circular nor infinite. Gravity does not impel or compel things in horizontal motion. It does not throw, push, or pull things laterally. Rather, gravity works in straight lines vertically, in the direction called "down" that is perpendicular to the surface of still water.

For example, gravity is not explosive. It is not extra-extensive. It does not explode things laterally. Rather, gravity is a simple and coextensive attribute of things and weights as they are in themselves, and on Earth it brings objects that have been loosed across the surface of the Earth to rest, as the Earth is always at rest before them.

Even though there is gravity and weight in a chemistry school book, gravity is not chemistry. Gravity is not electric or magnetic either. It is not electricity or magnetism or electro-magnetism. It is not hot or cold, or wet or dry. It is not a quality or an element. It is not density or rarifiability. Gravity is something different that is in the structure and design of things in motion and at rest. Gravity corresponds to accidental, coincidental, and efficient causes. Efficient causes are also called causae per se, meaning what something is as it is itself. If it is authentic, then gravity is a simple coextensive attribute of being and of authenticity in things that are ... and are either in motion or at rest. It is a question of quiddity and quality.

It is not a radial force that moves things laterally. If a three pound chemistry school book is left on a desk or in an old abandoned turnip truck, it will not ever move because of gravity. If four pumpkins are put in the four corners of the bed of an old abandoned turnip truck, they will never gravitate towards one another in the middle. Gravity does not move mountains, and it does not move pumpkins laterally ... and the Earth is not moving anyway due to any influence of "gravitational" force or "attraction" from the Sun or the Moon or any other celestial body that is orbiting it.

Recall that the Earth is not moving, and the Foucaulty pendulum hoaxem at the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic UN proves it, if you could not already tell by walking around or going fishing. Interferometer experiments like the Michelson-Morley experiments prove this as well: the Earth is authentically at rest. It is not moving.
 
In conclusion, gravity is as real as gravitas, but it is not electricity, magnetism, or electro-magnetism. It is not chemistry or chemical charges. It is not an explosive or lateral force, and it is not actively elemental. It is not what Newton and heliocentrism have erroneously theorized, an occult action-at-a-distance. Rather, the thing in question is passive, and it must be simple and logical, as it is by weight of numbers and structure and design, by things in quale quid.

10^-67 newtons ad infinitum squared would be a rack where heliocentric "gravity" could hang its hat.

"In quale quid" is a phrase that refers to the logic and predication of cause and effect. It means "in how what", or in English "what how" *. It is an important question, and Isaac Newton's "Principia" never really answers it regarding gravity. Throughout the "Principia" and even to now the cause of Newtonian gravity has remained unassigned. It is ironic when they say that the universal gravitational constant, "G", is difficult to measure with high accuracy and that scientifically published values of G have varied rather broadly; and some recent measurements of high precision are, in fact, mutually exclusive, because it always should be the same, and it is so common that it is supposedly everywhere.

But thank goodness, that at least for practical matters, in natural units, G may be set equal to 1. Well, isn't that special? Division or  multiplication by one does not affect anything.

In the meantime, have they not noticed that the Earth is not moving, and that the Sun orbits the Earth?

At any rate, Newton's theory of heliocentrism and of universal and mutual gravitation by degrees of the inverse squared never progressed further in quale quid, as much as possible, than demonstrative pronouns, adverbs, calculus of fluxions, geometry, and grammar. Newton's "Principia" is a cosmic theory of the system of the world and of things, wherever, whatever, however they are, that are here and there, that is set only in geometric figures and delusional math fummdiddles. It is a book of superstitious postulates of occult actions-at-distance, here and there, in this and that, and these and those, etc..

What heliocentrism and its theory of gravity fail to address is that particles and atoms, "corpuscles" as Newton terms them, exist uniquely in many different and variously charged fields ... and they are everywhere. Gravitational attraction is not universal. In contrast to Newton's concept of universal and mutal "gravitational attraction" by the inverse squared, the sign of gravity works vertically, only as much as possible, not horizontally, and it descends in many different circles as a coextensive attribute of being, not as a generative force. It does not go up, it goes down, and it does not move things sideways. It is situational, fragmentary, and circuмscribed in zones.

Even with all the systematic powers in order that are invested in their self-defense, the defenders of heliocentrism today admit that the "gravitational force" between an electron and proton (that is chemistry) only one meter apart is approximately 10^-67 newtons. This means gravity is incredibly weak and undetectable when compared with even the slightest forces that we are able to experience directly. It is much weaker than a tiny kitten or the world's littlest refrigerator magnet, yet this is the force that drives the Moon ... and the Sun ... around the Earth across such vast distances and at tremendous astronomical rates ... every day?

If Newton ran a cooking show the way he theorizes in the "Principia", no one would ever know what he really cooked. There would be very complicated recipes with complicated ingredient mixtures, but no one would ever know what it really was. It would be all this and that and these and those, here and there.

Even with commercials and TV, there is no money in gravity. There is no business, no recognized value, nor any cost item in gravity. No one makes a property value of it, or of its functions, or any profit in it like other things in physics and science. It is not commercialized at all. No bill or charge however small has ever been settled exchanging gravity. So where is it then?

In his third law or axiom of motion, Newton says, "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts." This saying has been made popular, it is often repeated, and it sounds catchy, but it is not a practical scientific principle. It is superficial, erroneous, and scientifically incomplete like his discussion of gravity and occult action-at-a-distance.

He has gone overboard and used the unqualified terms "every" and "always" carelessly. These are important and weighty terms in quale quid in any kind of science, and the proof for his theory here is not in the pudding but only in delusions of the mind.

He seems to have been talking about reflections. It sounds like a Newtonian metaphor for a sort of pre-Socratic monism, where it would be believed by subtle dualism that "all is one". But all is not one, and this is bad metaphysics besides. This law is only in Newton's mind not the real world. In the real world, it is only a possibility that sometimes to an action there may be opposed an equal reaction, and that the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other may be equal, and directed to contrary parts. However, in reality and usual practice of applied mechanics, architecture, and engineering, forces are unique results in genera and in species. Actual forces are in specific and generic codes, and to every force code there is not always opposed an equal reaction. In fact, any instance of force and code that is ever applied is completely unique with what the Romans called "haecceitas", which means "thisness", as in "this that is unique".

"Haecceitas" is everywhere like a limit of inifinity in codes, and it is in all forces. The innumerable complexity of it is everywhere. Therefore, only so good so far as it goes in metaphysics, as a poetic, abstract, and philosophical thought about reflections is Newton's law III.

If every action did always have an equal and opposite reaction, then there should be an infinite number of equal and opposite reactions that are ongoing to every little action. This way there should be an eternal recurrence of all things, which is only a contemplative fantasy that is not really possible. The eternal recurrence of all things is not possible because absolute infinity is indivisible and cannot be fathomed by parts. Infinity cannot be reprised or strung together by connecting and accuмulating parts, no matter how many.

If there were an eternal recurrence of all things and Newton's law III was scientifically valid, then little actions and steps of progress could not be excelled. "What is absoultely infinite cannot be excelled. Any perfection that can exist in numerically different things is more perfect if it exist in several than if it exist merely in one. Therefore,  what is absoultely infinite cannot be found in several numerically different things."  

In the real world, Newton's law III really could only work so far as this and that and these and those that would be operating here and there, in very limited and unique cases of design.

* translating "how" as "what sort, what kind", as in "what sort of action, what kind of motion". Not to quibble over sense in Latin, qualis-e, of what sort, what kind of, and quam, how, in what way, as much as possible. In quale quid quam? Of what sort what as much as possible. Quidquam a quale?  

Section I

In the crazy world of heliocentric physics, besides big G as a supposed constant force, there is little "g" as another supposed constant force.

Little g would represent the gravitational force and attraction of the Earth itself, especially that at the Earth's surface, and it is distinguished from the supposed universal gravitational constant big G. It also is 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, is  the nominal acceleration of an object in a "vacuum" of air near the surface of the Earth.

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. It is assumed that on Earth all objects fall with a conventional standard value of acceleration of exactly 9.80665 m/s2 (approx. 32.174ft/s2). Therefore, to simplify problems with falling objects around the Earth, the "gravitational force" of the Earth, "g", is set equal to 9.8 or 10 when rounded off.

Following Galileo's false law of falling bodies and his theory of gravity, it is assumed that g does not vary significantly with height or weight during a fall. Therefore, in the distance and time formula for free falling bodies, d = 1/2gt^2, a constant rate of acceleration is assumed. So if a little green cooking apple like the one that fell on Newton's head were dropped from 25 stories, a text book could say that it should take a slow 4 seconds to fall.

If it is assumed that each floor is about ten feet, with a little space left over here and there, 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. t = (2d/g)^1/2.

It was Galileo who developed the background for little "g" as a force, and the equation of distance and time, d=1/2gt^2 or t=(2d/g)^1/2, for bodies in vertical free fall acceleration. The old cock did this by rolling marbles down ramps, and dropping garbage off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, but the formula is more than a touch defective, since it makes no allowance for weight or density or maximum acceleration by different weights. Every weight naturally reaches a maximum velocity in free fall, and a finite weight cannot accelerate infinitely.

The formula d = 1/2gt^2 may be okay as a basic sort of outline concept, gained from rolling marbles down ramps, but it puts no limit on velocity increasing by t^2, and it has no regard for the significance of 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. 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.

For example, in the case of the falling apple of 25 stories, 4 seconds squared times 5 equals 80, which for rounding off simplification is close to 78.4 meters. The distance in meters, or displacement force of "g", is approximately as simple as 5 times whatever seconds of fall squared.

This formula method that Galileo developed may seem convenient, but it leaves the full complexity of distance, time, and velocity of weights in vertical free fall a little bit short. And, of course, it was made for an ulterior purpose anyway. After rolling marbles down tricky ramps and his other shenanigans, Galileo created this equation strictly as part of his heliocentric methodology and to prop up "gravity" as a susbtantial and constant force in physics. Since natural theories of motion referred themselves to an Earth that was established and immoveable, and that was a completely simple and authentic inertial frame of reference, Galileo and heliocentrism had to develop alternative and "relative" ... 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 part of this program.

His absurd law of falling bodies is 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 that is in free fall, its fall is described as uniformly accelerated, and the acceleration of all falling bodies is the same for each second during which any weight falls.

This sort of ridiculous game is kept up by heliocentric doctrine even today, because "gravity", as a constant force, is needed to explain the crazy theory of heliocentrism in the first place. Remember it is said that the Sun is driving the Earth around it in revolving orbits because of gravity. But like heliocentrism itself, upon closer examination, "gravity" really turns out to be only a mechanistic and abstract intellectual expression.

The fact is heavier weights do accelerate more in free fall. They do fall faster. The bigger they come, the harder they fall. Every mover knows that what is heavier is harder to lift, and to move, and it falls faster. Lifting is to falling as falling is to lifting.

Galileo's law of falling bodies is completely absurd. However, just as gravity as a constant force is needed for the theory of heliocentrism, the law of falling bodies is necessary for gravity to make any sense as a perpetual force. As a unitary, mechanistic, and perpetual cosmic force of heliocentrism, gravity must act uniformly. It must act constantly 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 ... which, of course, it is not.

For the idiocies of heliocentrism to chew gum and walk, a constant and instantaneous force of cosmic and universal agency is needed as a substitution principle for two fundamental constants that already confirm the science of geocentrism. The two constants of true geocentric science are:

1. the immobility of the Earth and
2. the constant proportionality between qualities and elements.

Big G and little g are needed as constant substitutes for the evident balance and harmony of the Earth that is not moving and for the constant proportionality that is in the various qualities and elements.

Here then are three key components of Galileo's system of substitution:

1. gravity as a force
2. law of falling bodies
3. undetectable motion of the Earth and "relativity"

Two disingenuous examples that Galileo used to advance his theory of fall were a storm cloud of hailstones and two 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 a feather let go in a limited "vacuum" of highly rarefied air. NASA famously attempted a demonstration of Galileo's law of fall, with a hammer and a feather, on a contrived movie set in 1971, as part of the TV entertainment of their completely faked Apollo 15 Moon landings.




Section II


Teaching that objects with different weights do not fall at different speeds, Galileo was wise to look for some confusing conversational examples. For instance, he would say, 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 Galileo that the hailstones were being manufactured at different altitudes, so he said a much simpler explanation is that all hailstones are made in the same place inside a cloud, so they all fall together at the same speed, whatever their weight.

Therefore, large hailstones from a storm cloud landed on the ground at the same time as smaller ones because all falling objects accelerate due to the force of gravity, independently of weight, and, therefore again, at the same uniform speed in free fall.

But when ships are caught in storms at sea, and they are in grave danger of sinking, they dump the heavier cargo and tackle first, to keep the ship afloat. Sinking is to falling as falling is to sinking, and nobody on a ship in trouble in a bad storm at sea wastes any time with Galileo's false law of falling bodies, "that all weights fall at uniform rates". Sailors in serious trouble dump the heavier cargo and tackle first. There is more buoyancy in air and water with things that are lighter, but according to the everlasting idiot Galileo, throw a few sunflowers overboard to help save the ship, and it is as good as throwing out a crate of bowling balls.

He also reasoned that if two bricks of the same weight and size fall at the same speed, side by side, they ought to fall at the speed when cemented together. Therefore, a single brick should fall just as fast as the heavier two bricks cemented together. However, Galileo's principle of equivalence is not how honest companies do business. Shipping, packaging, and the cost of gold go up with weight, and it is not all equivalent. Two bars of gold cost more to buy and to ship than one.

Besides accountants, other scientists and colonels, many people have disagreed with 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. One story is that Galileo and some old school doctors dropped various cannon balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and Galileo was clearly proven wrong. The heavier cannon balls always landed sooner, but Galileo would not admit his error. He only backtracked, stiffened his neck, and claimed it was because of differences in air resistance, and that the differences in fall between the big cannonballs and the little ones were small, and not nearly so great as the difference in their weights. It could only be air resistance, friction in the atmospheric affects, that made the difference Galileo claimed. And besides, he would say, the errors of the of the old school Aristotelians overall were egregious. Their mistakes were much greater and more emabrrassing than his own, because they still  insisted that the Sun orbited the Earth and the Earth was not moving.

For one last illustration, imagine for a moment, Galileo would say, that it was true that the heavier the object, the faster its fall. What would happen then if a small rock and a big rock were tied together, with some slack in the rope 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 rocks would fall slower than the big rock alone, because the small rock would lag behind the big one and bog it down; but on the other, they should fall faster because added together they constituted a greater weight.

He admits that in free fall the smaller lighter rock accelerates less and falls behind the bigger heavier rock and says that since the littler rock is tied to the bigger one, it slows the bigger one down. The rope would lose its slack from the smaller rock dragging behind the bigger rock.

But the bigger one added to the littler one represents more weight than the bigger one by itself, yet now in combination the total weight of the two rocks together, which is greater, is falling slower in free fall than the bigger one would by itself, so, in this case, a greater weight in combination is falling slower than a lighter weight.

This sort of convoluted distortion of a coincidental, accidental, marginal and very loosely contrived situation like this meant to Galileo that in order to avoid absurd conclusions, logic would force science to conclude that all objects fall at the same rate. This idea that all objects fall with a velocity independent of their weights was crucial to the theory of gravity. If Galileo's law of fall should fail, then so would the theory of gravity. And that would be the end of the theoretical basis of heliocentrism in the first place.

Galileo's sophomoric trick was to confuse people by keeping things as marginal and equivocal as possible. He uses deceptive methods of equivocation and insufficiency in the margins with no good purpose in sight, other than to entertain himself by confusing innocent people. The correct thing to do, then, is to look for some greater clarity to avoid his stupid and devised obfuscations.

So take a 500 lbs. anvil and a ping pong ball and drop them tied together (pin the ping pong ball to the other end of the rope) 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?

It is not of any significance in the anvil, the ping pong ball, or the rope.

The truth is that there is no effective gravitational force, and it is never of any significant practical measure ... other than density, weight, and mass. Gravity is merely a coextensive property of things that are situated around in many different circles of elemental structure and design. At the most, it is only a coextensive attribute of being, of things that are, that are around and all over in circles; and the practical significance of it in physics would be nil except for the properties of vertical free fall and inertia, that are in the structure and design of things.

For example, gravity does not affect birds, and it does not affect the
hippopotamus. It does not affect anvils or forges, ping pong balls, or leaves. It never affected any of Galileo's rocks, bricks, cannon balls, or marbles. Gravity, as a force, is a most dubious and unscientific hypothesis. Between the very weakest and most undetectable fundamental force of physics, that cannot move the littlest refrigerator magnet or a marble on a glass table, and absolute level zero where there is nothing at all is the greatest concentration of the power of gravity. It is effectively a zero.

Gravity does not affect the wind or the clouds. It does not stop or bend light, and it does not move marbles. Gravity does not affect a wandering albatross or condor in flight, or an anvil made of helium. Natural creaturely exhaustion and boredom affect a wandering albatross or condor in flight, not gravity. A condor or wandering albatross could continue flying on the wind forever, and it will never be affected by gravity. Gravity does not affect a bird 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. As gravity does not affect a bird in flight, it does not affect a bird when it is in a tree or in a nest either. Gravity does not even affect the biggest hippopotamus ... and not because it does not have wings. A hippopotamus rests in his warren of lake or pond many hours of the day, because of the beneficial bouyancy of water, not because of gravity.

For example, if science would quit lying, and it took a great hippo and a condor, instead of two 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 wrong. After they were both tossed from the edge, the condor tied to the hippo could not fly, not because of gravity, because gravity never affects any bird in the first place, 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 duck cannot fly and neither can a hippo), and air lacks the more compact and resilient buoyancy of a body of water.

Gravity is not what brings down the condor tied to the hippo, and it is not what brings to the ground the hippo either. 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 like a little bird, 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. It would have been all between him and the little pine.

If gravity is not what pulls down to the ground, in vertical free fall, a condor and hippopotamus tied together and thrown from the steepness of a mountain cliff, then is it even a vertical force? Gravity is not an explosive, extra-extensive, or lateral force, but is it even a vertical one? Is gravity what brings a parachutist or trapeze artist to the ground?

Since the Earth is a sphere can gravity, little "g"(9.8), be an exclusively vertical force? The honest answer is no. Gravity could be an exclusively vertical force only if the Earth were flat. Gravity then, sorry to say (because so many poor scientists believe in it and that NASA landed on the Moon!) is not even a vertical force.

If the power of gravity does not affect an anvil made of helium, when it is dropped from 25 stories, how does it affect one made of balsa wood or another made of lead and steel plate?

If world science took a 1,200 lbs. anvil made of lead and steel plate, and another of the same spatial volume but made only from a thin but firm shell of balsa wood that was hollow on the inside, and then a third of the same volume in space as the other two but made from a light and durable balloon design filled with 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, they would not. The heaviest anvil would hit the ground first, and the helium one would fly away. If gravity is not a force between three anvils and marbles, birds, hippopotami, clouds, and the wind, then it is not a force between NASA, the Air Force, the Luftwaffe, and the Sun and the Moon and here and Timbuktu (which is where they should send Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve de Wall Street Scam).

The truth is gravity is not a force. It is not a power of any residual occult action-at-a-distance, and without it heliocentrism completely falls apart. Without it heliocentrism cannot stand, and due to the spherical nature of the Earth, if gravity is not a lateral force, then it is not a vertical one either.

Gravity does not move a helium anvil sideways in the air. The wind does that. Gravity does not drive things horizontally, and since the Earth is a sphere, if gravity does not drive things laterally, then it does not impel or pull them down vertically either.

Consider the two anvils made of lead and balsa wood. A 1,200 lbs. anvil dropped from a height of 25 stories at the Eiffel Tower(2"E), will fall straight down vertically with very little affect from the wind. But if science drops another 1,200 lbs. anvil from 25 stories in St. Louis, Missouri (90"W) or Des Moines, Iowa (93"W), at the same time, lateral lines are being formed, and gravity little "g" (9.8) would be acting sideways to Paris, which it does not. Gravity does not move things laterally, and none of the 1,200 lbs anvils dropped in Paris, St. Louis, and Des Moines would move sideways at all due to gravity. But they are moving sideways to each other due to the spherical nature of the Earth.

Therefore, since gravity, little "g"(9.8), is a hypothetical radial force emitted from the Earth itself, according to heliocentrism and NASA, then if it is not a lateral force when it is charged up by the displacement of a 1,200 lbs anvil in free fall acceleration from 25 stories, it is not a vertical one either, because the Earth is a sphere.

Gravity is not a lateral force, and the only way it could be an exclusively vertical one is if the Earth were flat. Since the Earth is not flat, but it is a sphere, gravity then is not a vertical force either. Therefore, gravity is not a power of any active measure in the displacement force of a 1,200 lbs anvil dropped in free fall from the top of the Eiffel Tower.

Gravity is not an actual power or force that pulls or pushes things. When the illusions of heliocentrism are removed, "gravity" still has a place as a term of popular usage, but it only refers to an ontological property of things as they are in synthesis, as a coextensive attribute of being in physics, logic, and math.

11:03 pm

Parvus error magnum in finis quam abyssi abyssum invocat

Section II

Galileo devised his ramp experiments not only to have a math-equationed rule to go with his false law of falling bodies, in abstract uniform free fall acceleration due to gravity. It was also to support the notion of infinite horizontal motion. This notion is the basis of Newton's first "law" of motion, that "every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon."

Newton's first law matches up with Galileo's abstract situation where he rolls a metal ball down a sufficiently steep ramp into a smooth horizontal plane, and then the ball continues to roll on and on forever ... were it not for friction. In "Two New Sciences" Galileo had written "imagine any particle projected along a horizontal plane without friction ... now it is evident that this particle will move along this same plane with a motion which is uniform and perpetual, provided the plane has no limits."

However, there is no ball that Galileo could roll on a smooth, hard horizontal surface, such as a tabletop "without limits", forever. Perpetual horizontal motion, in fact, is logically impossible in the real world and in the mind. For a motion to be of infinite extent or perpetual it would have to be circular.

Any motion in a "right line", a straight line, is finite by its very nature. Every straight line has a definite beginning, even if people cannot tell where it begins or where it ends. Therefore, no straight line is ever infinite, because infinity has no beginning and no end. Also, any infinite motion would have to have an infinite source. Any authentic source of the infinite cannot have a beginning and cannot have an end, because the infinite has no beginning and no end. Whatever motion would be infinite, therefore, must always be circular, which eliminates the notion of perpetual horizontal motion as unsound.

The only way that any curve or straight line cannot have an end is if it comes back around to its beginning and forms a circle. Any perpetual or infinitely rolling marble set loose by Galileo would have to come back around to its beginning, to even have a metaphorical semblance of perpetuity and infinity in its limit.

Galileo and Newton would have more problems than they could imagine in trying to resource any infinite or perpetual motion, and it could not continue in any straight line, regardless of "friction" and "impressed forces", anyway. It could only go circular. The back and forth reflective quality in infinity is circular.

Galileo rolling metal balls down ramps and Newton shooting rifle bullets off the top of the Himalayas are not credible sources of any infinite motion, regardless of friction and air resistance. As a doctor from Scotland once said, "What is absolutely infinite cannot be excelled. Any perfection that can exist in numerically different parts is more perfect if it exist in several than if it exist merely in one. Therefore, what is absolutely infinite cannot be found in several numerically different things."

In other words, neither Galileo nor Newton nor heliocentrism can fathom what is indivisible by division, and every horizontal line is a divided segment.

For Galileo's marble down a ramp, or Newton's mountain top musket ball, to have an infinite motion it would have to be everywhere along its course at once. It would have to be instantaneous, and it would have to have infinite velocity and size. In other words, it would have to be everywhere at once and have an infinite source.

An infinite velocity cannot accelerate. It is already infinite. If anything is not absolutely infinite yet, it never will be. A motion which is infinite cannot speed up more, and it must be absolutely instantaneous, whereas no natural or lesser motion can take place in an instant. All natural and lesser motions than the infinite must have at least two parts. A marble cannot start at some finite point with infinite velocity, neither can it accelerate into infinity, so Galileo and heliocentrism have an impossible situation.

The problem with heliocentrism and Galileo's and Newton's ideas of equivalence and perpetual horizontal motion, then, is not friction. It is the essential difference between the infinite and the finite. It is the inescapable nature of finitude itself that runs to a wall of exhaustion against infinity. That is the finest and ultimate source of friction like "ultima ratio regum".

There is no rarefied vacuum anywhere in the cosmos that can escape this, and besides that there is no absolute or completely empty vacuum anyway, because no two points in space can be separated by nothing.

Galileo's marbles and ramp and Newton's musket balls and slingshots fired from the mountain top, and the spinning bucket and the Foucault pendulum, call out to the Moon and Mars ... and E.T. ... like "phone home, abyssum abyssi invocat". But nobody can reach infinity or "absolute space" or trace a perpetual horizontal motion with all the Reeses Pieces and zillions of numbers available in whatever lesser kind. Infinity cannot be reached by adding or multiplying things together.

If Galileo's marble was able to roll as far as Saturn, it would only be halfway to the point that is twice as far away. If it went to the point from Saturn that was twice as far away, it would only be halfway to the point that was twice as far away. If it went to the very most distant visible star, it would only have made it halfway to the point that was twice as far away from there.

Progress in straight lines is a lesser kind that is always fractional and can never be infinite. Every straight line and motion along a straight line can be divided into many parts from its beginning to its end and, therefore, is not fairly representative of infinity.