Page 1 of 1

'Be' or 'not Be' viz. Gravity

Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:52 pm
by nothing
Abandoning any/all traditional treatments of gravity in favor of deriving a less absurd one, beginning simply with a 3d body of water: note its characteristic surface and bottom. Perform the thought experiment: dropping a 5lb and 5 000lb object side-by-side (ie. thereby adding time-causation as an element completing traditional space-time) will result in the latter sinking with substantially more force owing to its massively superior capability of displacing water as compared to its 5lb counterpart. This is a basic 'nature' of any 3d space-time body of water.

To upscale the same (thus bringing the same force along with, to be viz. gravity) to a 4d framework involves little, less acknowledgement that any/all location(s) are in-and-of-themselves valid surfaces/bottoms. This being the case, matter can enter/exist/exit from any such valid location(s): definitely emerging from higher order(s) as a product of a definite collapse in/of an indefinite lower order(s). Note that, in either case, as-above-so-below is duly regarded as valid: thus the gravity of any such matter determines its own weight relative to surrounding bodies in/of the same firmament.

Gravity is thus both material and immaterial: the latter being, not necessarily a particular physical matter(s), yet still having matters associated with it, and thus an associated magnitude (ie. of energy) as it relates to any/all matter/beings involved. Even so: if any tautology begins with anything less a real valid substance (ie. an ignorant belief/assumption) what derives therefrom as any/all product(s) definitely has mass (albeit substanceless), therefor gravity, therefor is manifest and acts as such. This renders such assertions as:
The gravity of the belief-based claim, being...
as having a definite gravity according to what follows. For example:
Book Q is the perfect, unaltered and infallible word of god, and good for all of time.
definitely has a gravity (!) associated with it which definitely weighs (ie. influences) on/through (un)conscience action(s) of any/all associated believers taking it as generally true. As such, claims/assertions can be weighed objectively just as scales may objectively weigh the force with which any object sinks. In a 3d context, this is limited (hence the absurdity of Western treatment of gravity) by the nature of the context itself (!) thus gravity can not be said to be a property of space-time only. It is so much more profound(ly simple) than this: something is made (possible) by way of nothing. Creation ex nihilo.

To be (ie. creation), or
not to be (ie. destruction)
is certainly the question.

If choice were a fulcrum, the will of the creator and the will of the destroyer are one-in-the-same. Borrowing from Hindu tradition:
Vishnu (v) (choice-preserver) = Brahma (b) (creator) <-> Shiva (s) (destroyer)
v = b <-(v)-> s
wherein b and s can be the same folded circle as elohim 'GOD' and (v) is the shared will between masculine-bestowal and feminine-receptive who is itself a definite factor in the creation-destruction gradient.

If creative energy gradates into a "dead" state, the same can be said to be of material nature with gravity: despite being "dead", it still weighs and has a mass-energy, and thus collapses into an simple latent revolving attraction(s) to any/all nearby matter(s), relatively, according to their own mass-energy. Thus, belief-assumption(s) absent real substance still have gravity/mass proportional to the magnitude of the energy expenditure(s) to sustain the belief-assumption(s) as 'true' if/when in fact false. It can be said, then, that the magnitude of their falsity is a definite value, thus definitely weighs on any/all involved, including non-adherents who are defined by adherents. This certainly contributes to the overall problem of:
from whence any/all human suffering?
To collapse all of this into a real-world example (replacing book Q with any holy writ): *if it happens to be the case that:
Book Q is *not the perfect, unaltered and infallible word of god, good for all time.
yet the adherents indefinitely wage war against "unbelievers" (as so designated by the book), the gravity of this conflict now involves the deaths of hundreds of millions of people (historically) with a potential for an undefined many more (if unresolved) viz. the principle:
believer vs. unbeliever
division that defines the M/E conflict between the various Abrahamic belief-based ideologies. There is thus gravity associated with any/all (false) claims that is actively acting on any/all beings towards the ends of manufacturing suffering/death: first beginning locally with the individual accordingly, and evolving into a shared belief-based 'state' as defined by the 'state' (ie. believers) in relation to surrounding bodies (ie. unbelievers).

Now integrate: it takes a believer to believe evil is good, and the sum ignorance(s) of their conflation/confusion is what manifests as a/the lower-order physical gravity such that the gravity governs the physical cosmos broad-spectrum according to simple physical laws. In other words: as belief-based ignorance resolves back into the nothingness whence it was called into being, the gravity weighing down on any 'state' is resolved accordingly. Therefor, what trapped energy is to the form of material existence, free energy is to the liberation (of the same energy) from material existence. This means nothing has a gravity associated with it that can not be created/destroyed from/into nothing, because that is where it came from. The same is true of any/all belief-assumptions that are lacking conscious knowledge of any/all possible degree(s) of their own ignorance(s).

To close: rather than seeing gravity as a strictly physical phenomena, it is derived via a higher-order phenomena that has a collapsed lower-order physical counterpart that is both easier and more universal to understand:

whereas it takes believing to believe nothing is something,
it takes knowing to know no-thing is potentially anything.
It is a matter of perspective relating to two polar opposites:
bound ignorance and boundless knowledge, respectively.
To be bound by ignorance, or not to be.
To be boundlessly knowledgeable, or not to be.
These are the questions.

Re: 'Be' or 'not Be' viz. Gravity

Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:02 pm
by vegetariantaxidermy
Where does the 'viz' come into it?

Re: 'Be' or 'not Be' viz. Gravity

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 2:33 am
by nothing
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:02 pm Where does the 'viz' come into it?
To be (+) and
not To be (-)
denote creation
and destruction
respectively.

See:
-1 KNOW <-* tree of living (ie. order)
2 (any/all) <-*creation/infinitude (ie. to be)
-2 *not to* <-*destruction/finitude (ie. not to be)
1 BELIEVE <-* tree of knowledge of good and evil (ie. chaos)
0 I am (willing to. ..) <-*equal capacity for good/evil (left undefined as per 2:17).
___________________________________________.
(+) 0+1-2+2-1=0; I am (willing to) BELIEVE, *not to* (any/all) KNOW <-* tends towards any/all belief-based ignorance(s) due to satan.
(-) 0-1+2-2+1=0; I am (willing to) KNOW, (any/all) *not to* BELIEVE <-* tends towards any possible all-knowing god.
Therefor this reveals that if one starts from/with nothing, and (+) believes/assumes said nothing to be something, an associated gravity is viz. acting on the believing/assuming (as: a body of ignorance) whereas (-) would negate such gravity/ignorance.

This correlation of gravity/ignorance is (detrimentally) absent in the Western model of gravity. It follows that belief-based ignorance(s) adversely affects life and this is thus certainly testable, but perhaps not practically as because believers typically identify *as* their belief, undermining *belief-in-and-of-itself is invariably taken personally by believers (the same is idol worship) if even not intended personally. This making-something-out-of-nothing is viz. characteristic of ignorance-in-and-of-itself.