|Relativity, by M. C. Escher. Lithograph, 1953.
Of course I struggle “with” as to be free and in liberation of, as if to liberate oneself from all the constraints that we have applied to our circumstance, “by choice.” Can this be done? Can a human being actually float and defy gravity? I mean, how ridiculous?:) No….not one of those meditating bouncing beans either.
So it is ever the exercise in my mind to clarify and to seek an understanding of something given that holds great meaning, and may help me to understand an experience that will not let go..
Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.
I was given an image in mind a long time ago that has stayed close to me even while I concertize myself to the very explanations that science has to offer as a basis of fact. That if one could in a sense “experience an opposing force of another body,” that “through playing” one can come into what I had learn about the sensing of, as to blend with opposition. So as to move accordingly, while knowing that it could reach an extreme, I could in turn, turn it back on itself.
A body’s mass also determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field. If a first body of mass m1 is placed at a distance r from a second body of mass m2, each body experiences an attractive force F whose magnitude is
where G is the universal constant of gravitation, equal to 6.67×10−11 kg−1 m3 s−2. This is sometimes referred to as gravitational mass (when a distinction is necessary, M is used to denote the active gravitational mass and m the passive gravitational mass). Repeated experiments since the 17th century have demonstrated that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent; this is entailed in the equivalence principle of general relativity.
If you have ever expressed this physically, as in some Martial Art Form, some competitive edge in reaction, then it will have been grokked at it’s fullest, because you have blended the concept, with movement. It’s as if structurally you are given lines to follow, but now have to extend those lines into actually movements, from the mind, into the physical body.
|View of inner parts of earth. # continental crust # oceanic crust # upper mantle # lower mantle # outer core # inner core * A : Mohorovičić discontinuity * B : Core-mantle boundary (Gutenberg discontinuity) * C : Lehmann discontinuity * Author : KronicTOOL * Software : Photoshop (Click on Image for larger viewing)|
Now one would have to assume there is some mathematical basis to this exchange, yet I would rather focus on the exchange, as to define this in our life as something “sensual in movement and form.” Is it perfectly systematical and symmetrical “that one side had to equal the other,” in order for me to explain something about life as an expressive attitude about our dealings in society? How “justice might work” as a balancing scale? A balancing scale, about life and it’s truths
Would your body weigh more or less if standing on the Earth’s core? What about above sea level?
As you go further inside the Earth, the force you feel due to gravity lessens, assuming the Earth is has a uniform density all the way throughout. Less force means you weigh less.
The reason is that the mass attracting you is inside a sphere, and is given by M = (4/3) * pi * (radius)3 * density
The force you feel is given by F = G * M * (your mass) / (radius)2
This means the net force is F = G * (4/3) * pi * radius * density * (your mass)
(pi=3.14159 and G = Newton’s gravitational constant)
So as you go further inside the Earth, the radius is decreasing, so the force you feel is decreasing. The mass above you oddly enough doesn’t contribute at all to any net force on your body.
In reality, of course, the Earth is not of uniform density, and there is a slight increase in force as you go down from the surface, before it begins to decrease again. Still, you weigh less standing on the Earth’s core.
As far as what happens above sea level – you must realize that what happens outside the Earth is different from what happens inside the Earth. Inside, as you go deeper and deeper, the mass attracting you is less and less (as stated). Above sea level (the surface of the Earth, specifically) as you go further and further away, the mass remains constant (obviously), but the distance gets larger and larger, which makes the force (given by F = G * M(Earth) * M(you) / r2) smaller.
Notice that the formula that applies inside the Earth is different from the one that applies outside.
Dr. Louis Barbier
So there is this ancient notion about gravity being the same at all places on the earth, that slighting the idea of such minute differences, one would have to say “that it is not the same” and hence has left oneself “back in time” before it could be understood that the earth can be looked at in another way? That the length and distance to it’s outer edge, as some inverse square law can be explained “of all things.” Systemically explaining away, by understanding that gravity “is the same according to the weight of” is not the same in all places.
Truth, is that slight difference?
Structurally, building any foundation there are exactitude’s toward defining that space according to dimensional attributes as to straight lines and angles of perception. If you actualize this in physical form, you may have constructed a building. There are rules according to Pythagorean theorem that allows you build square things.
The emergence of, follows distinctive rules according to expression, artistically inclined, and for me, any point in space has such abilities. How structurally sound, any expressive display that for realities sake and purpose, we see where such expressions can arrive out of nothing? It was not logical and did not make sense to me that such expression can appear out of nothing, to become something. So there is a bias here for me about what is being revealed in that point, as well as, of what is being revealed in that moment.
I am of course interested in the creative process of a scientist. I am trying to be as responsible as I can about our comparison of the Heart and Truth(Feather) on the same scale as to be lead by example so as to define this concept better as, “If the heart was free from the impurities of sin,” not as some religious perspective about good and evil, but about the slight differences in the changes in the gravity of earth, and about the object that occupies that space, as well as, the inherent nature of that truth.
If I should point toward elemental considerations, each to its own, then, as some expression of some inverse square law toward that outer rim of physicality of earth’s domain, then it is with this insight that I look toward the “weight” of the concept with which “entrance to freedoms of eternal life” are nothing more then the recognition of “what weighs” according to those truths and what we adopt in our own lives according to the choices we make. If I say Heart, then it is wise that such entrances into the human being, is but a mental thing about how we weight things according to our set of criteria according Truth?
|Cross section of the whole Earth, showing the complexity of paths of earthquake waves. The paths curve because the different rock types found at different depths change the speed at which the waves travel. Solid lines marked P are compressional waves; dashed lines marked S are shear waves. S waves do not travel through the core but may be converted to compressional waves (marked K) on entering the core (PKP, SKS). Waves may be reflected at the surface (PP, PPP, SS).
Seismographs detect the various types of waves. Analysis of such records reveals structures within the Earth.