From Gravity to Inertia DRAFT for comment

inertia-k-12-science-physicsFrom Gravity to Inertia DRAFT for comment
Transition from perceiving behaviors as gravity-dominated to inertia-dominated
The bridging rhetoric for perceiving ether

One thing I learned as an elementary and middle school teacher is science is the art of asking good questions.

Tho I have a Goethean Science blog http://blog.goetheanscience.net I’m not a scientist by profession. My profession is closer to “mystic.”

I’ve made some effort to stay abreast of topics in New Physics, Etheric Physics and the Electric Universe. I notice a language (rhetorical) pattern that always makes me curious. On the primary questions of mass and movement, which interested Galileo, Newton and I’n sure many readers, I notice writers coming to conclusions before all observations are accounted for; and, a tendency to give up before questions about unaccounted-for observations are resolved. Giving up is not the same as answering a question; clinging to Newtonian principles is not the same as asking and answering questions.

I notice a tendency to close off discussion prematurely and stand on the authority of Newton and Einstein instead of proposing more useful questions. I notice these rhetorical gaps especially in middle and high school science teaching texts and online articles and videos for science teachers.

No such thing as “rest” in our solar system

Mr. Google tells me in Physics, inertia is defined as “the property of matter by which it retains its state of rest or its velocity along a straight line so long as it is not acted upon by an external force.”

However on Earth, anywhere in our solar system, there is no such thing as rest. The solar system is moving. So rest is only relative, one object to another.

What we mean by “rest” is two or more objects traveling at the same speed at the same time. Our perception of “rest” is highly conditioned by “proximity.” The common example is highway driving where a car in front of you or to the left or right of you appears not to move because you and it are traveling at the same speed and direction.

When we expand our perception of mass, we remember there is no “rest.” Every mass on Earth is already in motion. Since everything is already moving, each object has inertia just as much as it has mass.

Mr. Newton, I think, tells us gravity is a universal force; he tells us objects have inertia in proportion to their mass. HOWEVER I can find no observation helping me connect inertia with gravity.

My Goethean observation suggests the phenomena of inertia is very poorly described as a gravity phenomena.

My Goethean observation suggests inertia describes a mass phenomena.

Here, abstract mathematical thinking often intrudes on observation. It intrudes this way: “force X is a factor of force Y.” This is math lingo intruding on naked observation, sometimes distorting our thinking.

If correct, my observations suggest mass is independent of inertia. Whatever inertia is, Mr. Newton tell us it conditions mass to certain behavior: we must do work to move a mass from one location to another, or to change its speed or direction of movement. I observe this too.

What I am not able to observe is this common line of science teaching:

“Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass

The above quote clearly connects inertia to objects; it connects mass and inertia, makes mass a pre-condition for inertia. So far I’m unable to observe this.

The newer idea which fits observations more clearly is inertia, whatever it is, is indepdent of mass.

The idea is not unique to me. I forget the obscure references. Anybody know the references?

What I find more in line with my observations is “inertia” exists prior to mass, prior to objects.

What Newton called “inertia” can exist within mass AND exists everywhere in 3D time and space, independent and outside of mass.

When we start talking about observable something existing independent of and outside of physical mass, we are very, very close to talking about a medium within which all mass is situated and within which all mass is conditioned by.

If you like this, we are now miles away from “Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion.”

Once we consider inertia existing independent of mass, we are most of the way towards acknowledging a medium, invisible to merely animal eyes, surrounding and conditioning physical objects in one or more ways.

This is the of my proposal. To take it forward into discussing “ether” isn’t necessary because Rudolf Steiner, Gunther Wachsmuth, JJ Thomson and Gustave LeBon have done the work of documenting ether’s properties. Ernst Lehrs in his Man or Matter 3rd edition 1985 has done the work of connecting all of this with Goethean observation. No need to repeat their work.

I propose this thinking is 100% consistent with the thinking of JJ Thomson, Gustave LeBon, Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Lehrs.

The propositions:
– ‘inertia exists independent of objects’ and

– ‘resistance to a change of location or a change in speed or a change in direction, tells us of a medium thru which all 3D physical objects are already traveling,’

…are consistent with observation. Comments and corrections invited.

If these propositions find agreement elsewhere, they can do away with confused science teaching in the vein of, “Mass is that quantity that is solely dependent upon the inertia of an object. The more inertia that an object has, the more mass that it has.” http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-1/Inertia-and-Mass

To Do possibilities

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/contact-us/

Flowering plants speak to us of evolution and transformation (Ernst Lehrs paraphrase)

abstract-stamen-flower_lily16kIt appears the most active level of our waking adult psyche is four head quadrants, not anatomical brain quadrants, not physical-anatomical brain parts in any combination.

But wait, there’s more. “Brain quadrants” are only an analogy, a metaphor, for activity both obvious and subtle, occurring in our etheric body.

Brain-head quadrants appear to be the primary active level of waking thinking-feeling.

Before readers go off half-cocked, neither quadrants, nor any one quadrant, is the primary active level of our immortal-eternal soul.

Quadrants make possible the 3-dimensionality of all our habits (learned behaviors) of thinking-feeling, 95% of our psyche.

The other %5 to 10% of conscious deliberate choice-making is made possible by our immortal-eternal soul.

Keeping quadrants in perspective assists us not to over-generalize the significance of quadrants, as was done earlier with right~left brain hemispheres.

Building on Rudolf Steiner, a flower analogy is presented to show how all these things connect and evolve.

From our neck-up, in our thinking-feeling, we have something surprising, not predicted by the organization and activity of our gut brain, the capacity for independent thought, of critical thinking.

The surprising appearance of independent thinking on top of our more animalistic child within is exactly analogous to the surprising appearance of a rose blossom on top of a stem with only rose leaves.
If you just landed here from Mars, a desert planet, with not one flower at all, and you had never seen a flower on TV, nor any flowering plant; if you were seeing your first rose in bloom; and, the rose portion was blacked out, so all you could see was the roots, stem and leaves, could you easily predict a rose blossom?

No. Only a very poetic-intuitive consciousness would be abel to predict a flower blossom from only roots, stems and leaves.

Contemplating the majesty of how our head quadrants expand possibility in the human psyche, can lead us right into the natural character of transformation.

A rose blossom is the climax of a year-long cycle of slow, patient growth.

Independent thinking-feeling is the climax of 12 or more years of slow, patient development.

Nature’s developmental stages are visible in us. Humankind’s developmental stages are reflected in Nature—as Goethe and Steiner were trying to tell us.

Polarity of Connectivity~Renunciation (surrender)
Building on Goethe, in Man or Matter, Chapter V p. 85 in the 3rd Ed. “The Adventure of Reason,” Ernst Lehrs proposes “the Principle of Renunciation.”

Lehrs describes Goethe’s insight how the leaves of an annual plant have to renounce their comfortable rhythmic growth and predictable alternation to produce something completely different, new and unexpected, a flower.

The comfortable process of leaf, leaf, leaf has to be let go off to concentrate vitality towards producing a flower.

In turn the flower has to renounce its color, more-perfect geometry, fragrance and sexuality to make something altogether different: seeds.

In turn the seeds have to renounce living in the dreamy bosom of the Ur-plant, in perfect abstract potential, to do the work of germinating, sprouting and make the long climb of leaf, leaf, leaf.
Each stage has to give up a lot for the next stage to “blossom.”

The Three Sciences we use everyday article

Summary of Three Sciences chapters 19-20 of Balance on All Levels PACME+Soul ~

“Hard scientists,” especially those skeptical of holistic ideas and subjective phenomena, forget we use two other kinds of science every day.  three-sciences-triptych-hi-resThe average adult—especially women–use Three Orders of Science each day.

The science people are schooled in and familiar with is…

Second Order Science: Physical survival ~

Each day we make many survival choices, safe, rational evaluations about how to cross a busy street, drive a car, handle power tools, problem solve; in fact, to navigate any new, unfamiliar situation.

Activity and choices around survival are “real,” are one kind of rational thinking; and, this is one category of “science” we use daily.

However, we also use two additional sciences daily…

First Order Science: Immune System Self intelligence ~

Each day we make choices about what benefits me and only me. Do I like this dress better or that dress? Do I want fish or turkey for lunch today? Is it more beneficial for me to go to bed at 10pm or 1 am? Do I prefer this or that color, style, music, or turn of phrase in my speech?

Down below our neck, in our Small Intestine especially, our Cell Level Intelligence is “asking” or “testing” every single nutrient floating by the villi on the inside of our intestines: “Is this nutrient safe and beneficial for me to take into my bloodstream now?” Either this nutrient IS safe and beneficial now or it is NOT safe and/or beneficial now.

Even tho such choices concern me and me alone, these activities and choices are “real” and rational at their level of function.

The two above add up to TWO kinds of rational thinking. Now we have two categories of “science” we use everyday.

Let’s pause here to note “selfishness” occurs when the above two sciences fuse and separate from Third Order Science, the most expanded science we use daily. If we only use First and Second Order Science, then it’s “all about me.” “it’s all about me” becomes the mantra, the criteria for every moment of waking life. If an individual employs only First and Second Order Science, life is viewed in terms of win~lose. Either my needs are more significant than yours; I win over you; or, your needs or force overpowers me, I lose. Dog eat dog. A certain television president wonderfully demonstrates the errors and pitfalls of limited win~lose thinking daly. We can learn what not to do from his example.

Third Order Science: Intelligence of the greatest good for the greatest number ~

If you are a mother or a father, you make daily choices and decisions assessing the amount of food, clothing, shelter and resources in hand, against the needs of everyone involved. In this “science” we think rationally about how easy–or how difficult–getting more resources is; and, how the on-going needs of each family member expand or shrink, in the next period of time.

In this third category of rational choosing-deciding, I alone am no longer the sole stakeholder. I choose to consider the needs of my children, retired grandparents; perhaps also, extended family members. I myself am only one member of a greater whole. Choices I make as a parent apportioning resources for the highest good of all, are real and rational. Ask any parent.

By my count, this makes three categories of rational choosing, rational decision making, rational evaluations, we make every day, Three Sciences.

Q: What practical application does this have?

A: The Three Sciences has the most immediate and timely relevance to methods to every mode-method of holistic healing and Energy Medicine.

This is because Second Order (ego-survival, “hard” science) denies the reality and validity of everything holistic since the 1970s [including Waldorf]. Virtually the whole of holistic health and healing activity occurs in the domain of single individuals, the client The practitioner’s method or mode of treatment only has to work for one client at a time.

Q: isn’t this also true of psychological therapy, counseling and conventional one-on-one medicine?

A: Indeed yes, but the conflict is much easier to see and more public between Second Order (survival) Science and First Order (subjective realm of one person at a time) Science.

The Three Sciences make these historical conflicts obsolete. ONE science alone cannot span the range of rational thinking we use every day. To think so is male-dominator, King of the Hill thinking. What is beneficial at the cellular level, what is worth knowing for practical survival; and, what is beneficial for highest good of he next seven generations and all critters on Planet Earth, are three distinct realms of rational thinking, evaluation, analysis and choice.

We can, we do, we must, use different Orders of thinking to address issues, depending which scale of concern is before us presently.

First Order Science is the naturally supportive science for individual health, healing, personal transformation and spirituality

How our cells and immune system “think” is 100% First Order Science. Not Second, not Third. First Order Science is the Science of the subjective; where, we honor and uncover more of both its intelligence; and, its limitations.

First Order Science is the key to forward progress in health and healing because ‘each person heals uniquely’ (Rudolf Steiner paraphrase). What is workable to heal me is highly individualized. It may or may not be workable for you. What works is often subjective. Outside of accidents and physical injury, the vast majority of healing for humans must be calibrated to the single individual. Humans are the least herd-like of creatures.

Conventional medicine, born around 1950 in France and England, is 100% Second Order Science, the science of physical-material survival and male-ego-survival.

This is why it was pointless for John Thie, DC of Touch for Health and his practitioner colleagues to struggle for 25 years to get T4H services accepted by established medical authorities, why insurance companies never paid for Touch for Health by anyone except MDs. Holistic healing is literally outside what they call and consider “science,” beyond what they consider “real.”

With Three Sciences, we can say, just because holistic idea X is not Second Order Science does NOT mean no science, no rational, no critical thinking is occurring. Critical thinking occurs at three or more levels of intelligence inside us each and every day.

Q: Where does the science of Galileo-Descartes-Newton-Hawking fall?

A: Second Order. The middle Science was the first to evolve. First Order did not get going outwardly until the 1970s. Among modern Third Order thinkers, Lincoln, Gandhi and ML King stand out.

First Order Science healthcare has no conflict with Second Order medical healthcare. Why should they? they are separate Sciences. We want Second Order Science healthcare for accidents, injuries, and needed surgeries. We want First Order Science healthcare for most other wellness, health and all wellness-prevention needs. A future, Goethean Holistic Psychology will address these concerns at more length.

[Originally published online 2014.  Latest revision 2018]

= = = =
Author, Health Intuitive, Bruce Dickson online:
http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46
https://HolisticBrainBalance.wordpress.com
http://blog.GoetheanScience.net
https://Plus.Google.com/+BruceDickson-healing-toolbox

Spiritual Geography PACME 101 In your hands, handy version

No flowering plant grows just to make seeds; just ask any plant

red_flowerExcerpted from the forthcoming book on Brain Quadrants and Holistic Brain Balancing

Each year flowering annuals look forward to producing flowers all out of proportion to making seeds. No plant writes home to mother, “What big seeds I made this year.” Plants are proudest of the flowers they made.

We tell school children the purpose of plants is to make seeds so new plants can grow next year.

That is how the one-eyed, color-blind survivalist intellect thinks.
That’s not how a flowering plant thinks.

The plant thinks: “Just making seeds is boring. What’s the fun of doing the same thing over and over again endlessly?”

The plant thinks: “I want to make a FLOWER! I was born to make flowers!

“The leaf-leaf-leaf rhythm is all very well, but I’m just getting ready for the climax, the big event, my FLOWER!

In our etheric aura, each living thing aspires to become something more. We nominalize this into a static noun, “evolution.” Our etheric body experiences this as a verb and an affirmation, “I am evolving.”

Physical locomotion, crawling, walking, is the biggest physical metaphor for evolving. If I can move, when I’m in motion, I’m more likely to get to something better.”

To paraphrase Ernst Lehrs, what does a flowering plant aspire to? The animal kingdom.
In its flowering, the plant approximates, in plant terms, the sex organs of animals. Many flowers create scent as well, like animals do.

A plant’s sexual expression with partners close by or at a distance, mimics and pantomimes, as best a plant can, the sexual activity of animals.

As humans we look at flowers less as sex organ images and more as divine images. Why? At no time does an annual plant express so perfect a geometry as in its flower.

In the simplicity and perfection of its geometry, flowers approximate and remind us of the perfection and potential for symmetry in Divine Archetypes.

red_flowerThe seeds are a consequence of the flower. However compared to the advent of a blossom, more like a useful after-thought, clearly not the main event in the life and death of a flowering plant. Seeds are what it does as physical life and vitality is slipping away. Flowers is what plants do at their peak of vitality.

Each year flowering annuals look forward to producing flowers all out of proportion to making seeds. No plant writes home to mother, “What big seeds I made this year.” Plants are proudest of the flowers they made.

It may be helpful to add here the image of a gentle upward spiral. Flowers are the rapid, accelerated development that punctuates the otherwise peaceful process of leaf, leaf, leaf. Every intelligence in our brain-psyche aspires to a gentle upward spiral. In Holistic Brain Balance we test and check to learn if a gentle upward spiral is present or not. If not, we apply what we know so a gentle upward spiral is present.

Review of Man or Matter (1985) the Einstein of etheric forces

bk-man-or-matter

Review of the 1985 edition, the preferred edition, the most clear, readable and definitive of the three editions. If you have tried the 1951 edition free online, find it inspiring yet also confusing or hard to read, try the 1985 edition.  Tho clearly edited, 1951 edition was more a “first draft” of a later, more presentable edition.  1985 is author-revised and professionally edited by two editors. 

Note ~ You are correct, “Man or Matter” makes little sense. The original title was Man AND Matter. ‘Man AND Matter’ is the relationship Lehrs builds up. The unnecessary title change and forgetting the 1951 copyright suggest a lot about amateur publishing quality circa 1950.

A Waldorf high school science teacher by profession, Lehrs works from a detailed history of science and science biography, at a high school level. He cogently, coherently and politely points out the errors, detours and dead ends exclusively materialistic science took.

Lehrs honors and values the intelligent capacities of the isolated observer-self of Cartesian-Newtonian “hard” science. Lehrs shows how awareness itself, as part of Nature, is like salt crystals dissolved into water. If over time salt content increases, eventually, salt re-crystalizes out of the water into visible, separate crystals. Lehrs likens ‘salt crystalizing out of water’ to the emergence of the isolated observer-self of Cartesian-Newtonian “hard” science. This ego is a limited self, yet a necessary self, a necessary middle position in post-modern science.

Lehrs introduces his famous metaphor of conventional-traditional scientists as one-eyed, color blind, spectator-observer, isolated, divorced and apart from Nature. This caricature is also known as “Island Man.” The self-destructive addictions of the fictional Sherlock Holmes point to the dangers of humanity divorced and separated from Nature and from healthy self-connection. in recent generations, 19th century materialistic science is now the iron bands around the chest of our expanding capacities for Intuition, Inspiration and Imagination.

Lehrs re-frames the entire history of science using Goethe’s holistic-humanistic approach. This leads readers to clearer view of Goethe’s comprehensive holistic theory and Goethe’s general holistic experimental method. These are then applied to etheric formative forces, with varying degrees of success. At its best, a way forward is laid out to re-incorporating into post-modern science, etheric formative forces neglected-dismissed-ignored by Enlightenment science.

The reader is taken on a journey similar to Lewis Carroll in Alice into Wonderland and to the protagonist in Flatland. In little steps, a wondrous unforeseen landscape is gradually uncovered in glimpses.

For Lehrs, the big picture is Nature, the external world, and all the forces within it, are created out of gravity and levity, other polarities arising out of the primary polarity of gravity~levity. In the world Lehrs describes, gravity~levity are constantly at play and in play. Their meeting is the motive energy behind heat, friction, electricity, magnetism and radiation. Emphasis on how all forces devolve from gravity~levity is absent from the first edition. It may help to keep it in mind if you attempt reading 1951.

Along these lines is the modern idea, perhaps coined after Lehrs’ death, of “strong and weak forces.” I think Lehrs might agree that on Earth, gravity is the stronger force, levity is the naturally weaker force. While Lehrs proposes gravity~levity interacting to form other forces, a 50-50 proposition, is clearly not the case.

Q: Why did science of the 1890s abandon all ether theories?

A: No way to model the phenomena of mass was found in ether models–short of including God (our “rock” our “ground”) in atomic theory. This men of the time would not do. The solar system model of the atom, proton, neutron, electron was the best Plan B model they had. For atheistic 1800s scientists, this was the best they could do. See The_Vortex_Atom_A_Victorian_Theory_of_PDF

Lehrs resonates with Goethe, advocating a return to direct, personal observation of natural phenomena, to doing the inner work of evaluation and synthesis, to the final outer work of sharing what has been learned and how the experimenter has been changed by his or her study. This amounts to something like a return to healthy, truly human values in science.

With Lehr’s science coaching, it’s possible to begin perceiving in Nature the over-arching influence of gravity and levity, dancing in countless combinations and expressions all around us.

The result? Sure enough, there is a place for etheric formative forces in post-modern science. Ether can no longer be dismissed as metaphysical abstraction and unreliable clairvoyance. Lehrs Man or Matter is not the last word on ether; it is certainly a most wonderful first word. I recommend it over Wachsmuth’s, Etheric Formative Forces, which I would read second, not first.

A second result of Lehrs gentle touch is much of what is called “physics” today is shown to be “Naïve physics”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_physics

Lehrs suggests the following are also “Naïve physics:” “The Sun makes me hot;” and, “The diameter of this small ball of copper expands when heat is applied because the atoms are agitated and moving further apart.”

Our Naive scientist (inner three year old) likes simple “logical” explanations and is satisfied by over-simplified, naive ideas. This insight explains the origin of most superstition; such as, decaying meat directly causes-births house flies.

When our Conscious Waking Self goes along with naive conclusions, accepts naive explanations as the “final word,” we end up with dogma. which can take centuries to rectify. Lehrs politely suggests how many ideas of modern science, (1850-1950) are more similar to superstition. In the light of Goethean Holistic science theory and method, many of these dissolve and are transformed.

Q: How much progress has been made replacing more naive science ideas with more clear post-modern science ideas?

A: Not much. In 2018 we remain only at Day One of re-evaluating the naive conclusions of Natural Science in this new light. For those interested, the next step is an expanded science paradigm. This is the topic of the Three Sciences we use everyday.

The later sections of Man or Matter 3rd, on esoteric planetary and Hierarchy influences will interest only those already steeped in Rudolf Steiner’s esoteric Christianity.

= = = =
Author, Health Intuitive, Bruce Dickson online:
http://www.Amazon.com/Bruce-Dickson-MSS/e/B007SNVG46
http://blog.GoetheanScience.net
http://blog.goetheanscience.net/?s=Three+Sciences+we+use+everyday+article
https://Plus.Google.com/+BruceDickson-healing-toolbox